Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill

It is with great pleasure that I rise in this debate to talk to the issues. The facts in the case are clear. Mr Duynhoven has resumed his Dutch citizenship, and Dutch law deems him to have been Dutch from birth. In that position now he joins approximately one-third of the current members of the House, sitting in the Chamber at the present time, in holding dual nationality. The interpretation as to whether that would breach the Act and create a vacancy, is less clear. The majority of the Privileges Committee said yes. Professor Palmer, a constitutional expert, said no, but so did Professor Philip Joseph, who is one of the two other leading constitutional lawyers in the country—

💬 Dail Jones: Read page 4.

—somewhat outweighing Mr Dail Jones in that regard. The principles are clear. The principle is that we should all owe allegiance to New Zealand and that every member of this House is now a New Zealand citizen, but, equally, dual nationality is not inconsistent with the practices and traditions of this House and of this country. Indeed, some of those who have already waxed lyrical in this debate hold dual citizenship and are married to people who are the consul for a foreign country.

The present law is foolish, outdated, inconsistent, and ridiculous. Some people believe that one could renounce one’s citizenship the day after the election and still remain an MP; that one could exercise a British passport for three parliamentary terms without renewing it, go to Britain, ponce around as though one were a pom, but hold a position as a New Zealand member of Parliament. Yet Harry Duynhoven, simply doing what is his birthright, comes within the purview of the statute.

It is interesting that the first reaction of the National Party, from Mr Brownlee, was to say that we should legislate to overturn the stupidity in the law. But then they did this private little secret survey. At the Privileges Committee I said we should have a proper survey by the committee of all MPs, if necessary on oath, to find out the facts. But Mr Prebble immediately said no, and the National Party said no. Instead we have had these surveys in secret, and National now assures us they are all right. The National Party, having done a secret survey, then decides that its principles are that it is opposed to a change in the law.

Now, what if National had found out that Mr Richard Worth had, in fact, breached the Act? Mr Richard Worth is the consul for Monaco—a somewhat louche principality bordering the Mediterranean, whose only purpose in life is to make money by gambling, and is noted for somewhat dubious princesses. Mr Worth, last year when asked to choose between his duty and his pleasures, hesitated for not a moment, before choosing his pleasures, instead of going to an El Alamein service. “Mr Monaco” is on the record as saying that when he is at a public function, the national anthem of Monaco should be played—which, I assume, is “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?”. But he is all right.

But Harry Duynhoven, who has been Dutch since birth, is not all right, because the Dutch Government changed its law, and for a period of time he was not Dutch and he re-established his Dutch citizenship. The law is an ass, and when the law is an ass it should be changed. That is the reality.

Then we have been told by members opposite—by Mr English—that this has never been done before. In one of those glorious “Prebble-isms” on Morning Report this morning, we were told that the New Zealand constitution is unwritten, and the Electoral Act is part of it. Here is the Electoral Act, and it is written in great detail. Four times in its history this House has legislated in these matters to get members out of a mess—most recently in 1981 when a member of Parliament was marrying a foreign citizen, and then in 1943 when Walter Nash was overseas for a long period as a diplomatic representative. It is definitely not true that this has never been done before. It has been done four times before in New Zealand’s history.

The real issue, of course, is what should our allegiance be. On that there can be no doubt: our primary allegiance must be to this country, but—[Interruption]—clapping his hands is Mr McNair, who is entitled to American citizenship. Sitting next to him is Mr Dail Jones, who is a British citizen. Moving further along, we come to Mr Prebble, who is a British citizen. Behind him is Ms Bradford, who is entitled to American citizenship. I make no secret of the fact that I am a dual citizen, having been born in the UK. Ms Pansy Wong opens her mouth in horror at the thought of dual citizenship. Well, there are words we are not allowed to use in this House about that kind of reaction.

Where does all this stuff derive from, about foreign princes and powers? I hope Mr English is listening to this. It dates back, principally, to the Act of Settlement of 1701. What is the main purpose of the Act of Settlement, Mr Speaker? I think you and I know that. It is to keep Roman Catholics off the throne, and to keep Roman Catholics out of Parliament, and to keep Roman Catholics out of the ministry. That is the whole purpose that this derives from.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: We’ve been paying you back with electoral victories ever since.

Mr Brownlee says yes. He thinks that is a good idea. That means his name will be struck off the St Bedes College old boys’ list, for a start.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a gross misrepresentation of the fine interjection I made. At least, I never came to this House and abused my former old boys by saying I intended to tax the daylights out of them, as Dr Cullen has done.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and the member knows it.

I am glad to have let some of the air out of that rather over-inflated tyre, on that particular matter. But it actually goes back further: this stuff about foreign princes and powers—“foreign princes and potentates” is the original—goes back to the Act of Appeals of 1533, which is actually the first major move in the English Reformation, and abolished appeals to Rome. The whole background of this in our law is suffused with anti-Catholicism. In New Zealand law it first comes in the Constitution Act of 1852 when the purpose then was to be British. Now, if one was, and took out a British passport, one would be in breach of the law, because there was no such thing as a “New Zealand citizen” in 1852, and not for many, many decades thereafter. It is a piece of nonsense that we are dealing with in this particular respect.

Mr Prebble, of course, came up with his usual Aunt Sallies. Sitting there, as a British citizen—he went very quiet in the Privileges Committee when I pointed that out, when we got into questioning—not a million miles from being connected with the consul of a foreign power, and one of such a dubious nature we are sending our police and army personnel there to rescue it at the present time. But no, that is perfectly all right! It is perfectly all right for Mr Worth, representing a foreign power; and last year, let us remind ourselves, he wanted to represent the Italian challenger to Team New Zealand. I regard that as close to some form of treason in this country. It is much more serious than asserting one’s right to be a Dutch citizen from birth, as Dutch law allows.

But no we are going to have all this pompous self-righteous nonsense paraded through the day from Opposition members, as they try to argue somehow or other that Harry Duynhoven ought to feel the full force of a law that none of us actually knew had that effect—certainly not Mr Prebble, previously; certainly not Dr Mapp previously—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Simple resolution—have a by-election.

—certainly not Dr Mapp previously, knew that was the effect of the law. We have never had a briefing from the Clerk’s Office or from the Parliamentary Service Commission that members needed to be aware that if they were British citizens they could not renew a British passport.

I have no doubt in my mind that many MPs in the past have breached that law. Many MPs, I am certain, have breached that law in terms of renewing British passports. Parties opposite having carried out secret surveys, assure us they are clean, and now on principle they can vote against the bill. I do wish Richard Worth had not passed on a technicality. I would love a by-election in Epsom, where ACT would put Mr Richard Worth out of Parliament, and I have to say this bunch of National Party turkeys opposite want a by-election in New Plymouth where our Harry would return with a massive majority, and they would not even come second. They would be lucky to come third, and, more probably fourth, behind ACT. New Zealand First would come second, ACT would come third, National could come fourth. But, of course, they know they have not got the majority, so they are safe to take their principles into oblivion by the end of the day.

The Green Party supports the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill and, indeed, we are pleased to have been able to work with the Government in the development of this legislation. I have known Harry Duynhoven for almost 20 years, mostly through our joint involvement in the Trade Aid organisation. I regard Harry Duynhoven as a friend; but it is not our longstanding friendship that is our reason for supporting this bill. This bill is not the “Save Harry Duynhoven Bill”. The Green Party would support this legislation even if it saved the seats of Winston Peters, Roger Sowry, or Richard Prebble.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Would Roger Sowry have National support?

That is an important point. Under this ridiculous law, list MPs do not even have the opportunity of standing again in a by-election, and that is why I particularly mentioned a list MP in this context. This confirms the principle—a long held principle—that New Zealand members of Parliament can have dual citizenship. It fixes an obvious nonsense in the Electoral Act—an archaic provision that has been gathering dust for over 150 years. It is accepted in this country that an MP can be a citizen of another country, or hold a passport of that country, without his or her allegiance to New Zealand being undermined or negated in any way.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Dr Mapp can interject from his seat—not by moving closer to Mr Donald. I think this is a serious debate. I want to hear Mr Donald, whose party has this one call in this first reading. I do not think he needs to be subject to that sort of noise.

Indeed, a number of members of this House, perhaps upwards of 30, are citizens, or hold passports, of other countries, and that includes a few of our own members, I would acknowledge. Anyone who votes against this law is in effect challenging the commitment of those MPs to our country. Surely they do not mean to do that. It is also accepted that if an MP becomes a citizen of another country during a term of Parliament as a result of marrying a foreign national, that is OK. The law was amended in 1981 to make that explicit, but it was not amended to protect sitting MPs from renewing their foreign passport or taking out dual citizenship.

The stupidity of the current law is highlighted by the fact that not only has Harry Duynhoven broken the law—and we do acknowledge that a vacancy has been created—but also that he is eligible to immediately stand again in a subsequent by-election. How ridiculous can the law be? But even more significantly, the current law has not been amended to require MPs to maintain their New Zealand citizenship while they are in Parliament. I would ask opponents of this bill whether they are happy to leave in place a law that means that every member in this House, at the moment, could legally renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship and remain in Parliament. It is clearly a nonsense. Both these extraordinary flaws in the Act need to be fixed, and will be, by this bill.

Clauses 4 and 6 ensure that every MP’s loyalty to New Zealand is not in question, providing he or she remains a New Zealand citizen. There has been some talk about amending the bill to apply only to Harry Duynhoven or to apply only from the period from the election until now. I think both of those ideas are patently ridiculous and undermine the very principle that we are trying to reinforce with this bill. Because the principle we are trying to reinforce is that dual citizenship is valid and acceptable, and there is no question about any member’s allegiance to New Zealand, if he or she is also a citizen of another country.

If we constrain this bill to one MP, then it becomes the “Save Harry Bill” and ignores the principle, in fact, undermines the principle. If we make it only from the election until now, what we are doing is denying the rights and opportunities of all other members in this House who are entitled to have a foreign passport, when that passport comes up for renewal, or who are entitled to take up a foreign citizenship during the period from now until the next election. So we say those amendments are not helpful and, in fact, undermine the very principle that we are trying to reinforce with this law, and we will not support any such amendment.

In our view this bill is clear, straightforward, and short. It will deal with the immediate problem that has been highlighted, and also give the Justice and Electoral Committee the opportunity to have a wider review of the legislation to make sure all the archaic elements are dealt with. This bill should not be a matter of great debate in this House, but clearly it will be. It will be because National, and ACT, in particular, are determined to make fools of themselves. If they had their way Harry Duynhoven’s seat would be declared vacant and a by-election would need to be held. That would cost, I am told, around $350,000.

I have heard some other members say that this session of urgency will cost more. That is only because they are dragging out this debate. I say that that is a complete waste of public money. Would any taxpayer thank National and ACT for putting the country through this unnecessary expense? I have had only one communication saying that there should be a by-election, and heaps of people saying “What an absolute nonsense; why don’t you fix the law and fix it quick.” How many people have asked ACT to waste a whole heap of public money on a by-election? How many voters in New Plymouth have asked National to campaign for a by-election? The Government must have been sorely tempted to call one, because National would have been on a hiding to nothing. That is because Harry Duynhoven is the most popular constituency MP in this country. He won over 20,900 votes at the last election: more than any other MP in this House. He has the second-largest majority in this House. What is more, National, ACT, and New Zealand First voters gave him that majority. Their own voters must be wondering about the credibility and commonsense of the leaders of the parties they voted for. Because just under half of the people who voted ACT—747 voters—also voted for Harry Duynhoven. Almost one-third of the people who voted National—2,079 of them—endorsed Harry Duynhoven as their local MP. Members should go into the Internet and check the split vote report. That is the same reason that I sense New Zealand First members want to support a “Save Harry Bill”. Because if they have done their research they will know that well over half of their voters—2,299 of them—voted for Harry Duynhoven as their local member of Parliament. So I suggest that certainly ACT, and National, get a reality check—

💬 Dail Jones: Was there a New Zealand First candidate?

I would have to check. Mr Jones should have a look and tell me in a minute.

💬 Dail Jones: There wasn’t one.

Well, there we go. I suggest anyway that National and ACT get a reality check from their own voters before opposing this bill. My colleague Metiria Turei will raise a number of other issues during the second reading debate. But for now I simply want to say that the Green Party believes that Harry Duynhoven—or any other sitting MP—should not suffer the unintended consequence of losing his seat as a result of reclaiming his Dutch citizenship, something he actually had when he was an MP from 1987 to 1990, and from 1990 to 1993. Harry Duynhoven was not putting his Dutch heritage ahead of his commitment to New Zealand, and parties opposed to this bill should stop their political point-scoring and pass this bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have not had a second call at this point in the debate.

I want to make a comment about that. There are 12 calls in this debate. Six calls go to the Government or its supporters, and that has been the situation ever since the general election. Every second call goes to a Government MP. The Labour Party and the Progressive Party have 54 out of 120 seats, and get every second call. The National Party will get its call in due course.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So do I take it from your ruling that you regard United Future as being a Government party, bearing in mind that it got the second call last night ahead of New Zealand First?

No, I did not say that. I said that had a Labour member taken the second call last night the Labour Party member would have got it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to clarify this matter. Mr Donald has just told us that he is proud of the fact that he helped to draft this bill. It would seem to me that the divide really is between those members of Parliament who saw the bill only when it was tabled last night, and the other MPs—apparently from the Green Party, maybe from United Future, as well, and from the Labour Party—who did. I think that is where the division should be. Half the speakers should be MPs who were not allowed to see the bill prior to it being tabled, and the other half should be MPs who have colluded with the Government in this constitutional change.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a novel point, but it is not accurate.

This issue began around the question of Harry Duynhoven and whether he could sit in this Parliament. It was referred to the Privileges Committee, so the committee could look at a matter of privilege. The Speaker, of course, has the legal responsibility of declaring a seat to be vacant—or not. The Privileges Committee, in its majority report, found that the law did, indeed, state that the seat was vacant. But more questions were thrown up than we actually had answers for.

This debate is typified by the facts that the Privileges Committee, when adjudicating on a New Zealand citizen who is also a Dutch citizen, was chaired by an Australian-born member of Parliament who is entitled to sit in the New Zealand Parliament, and that we did so in the Māori Affairs Committee room, where the spirit of the 1835 declaration announcing tino rangatiratanga in New Zealand was present. And every member of this House has had to consider whether some way or another he or she has inadvertently, or even advertently, breached the law.

The question that emerged, in terms of the situation for New Zealand, is this. Dual citizens in New Zealand can stand for the New Zealand Parliament. That is allowed by law; it is enshrined in a constitutional document, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Every New Zealand citizen has the right to sit in the New Zealand Parliament. Yet, at the same time, if an act is done under a statute that no one was aware of, an act that is as minor as a member with dual citizenship renewing his or her passport—as one is entitled to do in law—that puts that MP at risk. It is not even the act of achieving a passport, or achieving citizenship; if one looks at the law, one finds it is possibly just the act of inquiring about, or making an attempt to obtain, a passport, for whatever particular reason.

In this Parliament we have had the privilege, because of this debate, to upskill ourselves in a whole range of areas. We had Sir Geoffrey Palmer appear before the committee, and whatever the opinion people may have of the views he holds, he is recognised as a very learned lawyer in New Zealand. We had advice from Terence Arnold, the Solicitor-General, and various comments in the media from constitutional lawyers, so the debate has been educational for members of Parliament. But the one point that has struck me is that in almost all that comment, nobody has suggested that we should not have dual citizenship in New Zealand. That reflects two things. First, I hope that it reflects a very broad-minded attitude that we do not just judge people’s allegiance to New Zealand by where they may have been born, the colour of their skin, or their religion, which in this world is a good step. Second, it reflects the fact that dual citizenship is, in every part of New Zealand life, accepted.

In fact, we have gone one step further than that, on the question of residence. In this Parliament, even at the present time, one does not have to be a citizen of New Zealand in order to be a member of Parliament. One can be a member if one was on the electoral roll in 1975. That was my position. In 1975 I was a New Zealand resident, and subsequently I was elected to this Parliament. No one can say that I have not been the most loyal and wonderful member of Parliament, in representing New Zealand’s interests. In fact, with regard to New Zealand’s interests, when I have spoken to the Australian Government it has had no doubt that my allegiance lies with New Zealand’s defence policies, and not with those of Australia. New Zealand is in no danger that I would swap the allegiance I hold to New Zealand for allegiance to the Australian Government. Yet, as Mr Peters pointed out last night, my allegiance may be to Ned Kelly. May I say that someone like Ned Kelly, who, had he been here, would have been entitled to be elected to the New Zealand Parliament, and would have made a very good member of this Parliament. He would have raised the standards very high.

Of course, we have had the benefit of not only the Deputy Prime Minister but also of a lecturer in history, with some knowledge in that field. History is a debatable subject, and we do not all have to agree on its interpretation. However, we do know that the purpose of the Act of Settlement 1701 was to ensure Protestant dominance in Great Britain, and to retain the power of the Protestant groups. In New Zealand, well before other countries, we accepted Roman Catholic Prime Ministers. In fact, one of our best Roman Catholic Prime Ministers also had his allegiance to Ned Kelly: Michael Joseph Savage, one of the great Prime Ministers of New Zealand. Not only was he a Roman Catholic but he was an Australian, who was born very close to where Ned Kelly had his major areas of operations. Michael Joseph Savage was a very good Prime Minister. As well, on the National side of the House, in terms of spurning the Act of Settlement 1701 we have had James Brendan Bolger, who I believe is also a Roman Catholic. Therefore, we in New Zealand have put aside this legislation about allegiance to other countries.

What are we being asked to do? In its majority report, the Privileges Committee stated that yes, this particular section of the Electoral Act means that the seat can be declared vacant. But it has also raised the question of the ambiguity of many laws and practices in New Zealand that recognise dual citizenship. We as a country have also not declared that for it to be said that one is patriotic, one has to have a type of false patriotism and be able to say that the only country one will ever live in, and stand on the soil of, is New Zealand. We recognise our heritage. We recognise the ability to have allegiance to New Zealand and to hold dual citizenship, and that is a very good thing.

What are we faced with? Parliament is faced with fixing a problem, and fixing it in the eyes of the public, not with hiding some treachery, and not with hiding some allegiance to countries that will undermine New Zealand’s sovereignty. New Zealand First is often telling us that it is here to fix it. Well, let us take up that wonderful slogan from New Zealand First, and let us all fix what is an anomaly in this Parliament. Let us not—and I do not think the public wants us to do this—go on a witch-hunt to find out who may have a passport, who may have made an inquiry about a passport for one of his or her children or his or her partner, or who may, in the secrecy of his or her home, have even cheered for an alternative team to the All Blacks. Who knows which Australian-born MPs here may hedge their bets until half-time in a game, and then change their support? If an MP changes backwards and forwards on a sporting matter, would we then say that he or she will betray New Zealand? Of course we will not. There are plenty of people with New Zealand passports who I would say have betrayed our interests in many, many ways. But it does not follow that because one is a dual citizen one will betray New Zealand’s interests. By accepting dual citizenship, I do not believe that previous Parliaments meant that expulsion would be the consequence of seeking a passport. Nor do I believe that this Parliament should sit by and make sure that we perpetuate a nonsense. We have in front of us a bill that will allow us to bring some sense to this law, and we will put it in front of the Electoral Law Committee and then remedy the problems. To use New Zealand First’s slogan, let us make sure that Parliament fixes the problem.

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 Māori 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 Māori have as they go about their business at the moment, taking over New Zealand.

I want to ask the Māori 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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 Māori caucus, but is quite happy to have a bunch of foreigners determine the future of Māori 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.

I hope that as many New Zealanders as possible are listening to Parliament today. I know it is sadistic to wish that on my fellow citizens, but I hope people are listening to this debate today. It is an important debate, but the reason I hope many New Zealanders are listening is that this debate is further proof that National picks the wrong issues. New Zealanders think a by-election would be a complete waste of time. The people in Taranaki think that to hold a by-election would be absolutely ridiculous. I say to National members: “Keep on this theme. Keep at 20 percent and falling, because you’re picking the wrong issues.” Every time the National Party, ACT, and New Zealand First mention the word “principle”, the sale of Stemetil and other anti-emetics goes up. Those people over there would not know a principle if it came up and banged them on the back of the head. We need to progress this bill, and stop listening to all the ridiculous mouthings coming from that side of the House. We need to pass this bill, and get on with the real business of Parliament, which is about passing progressive social legislation.

I want to start my contribution in this debate by making one point very clear: no one in this country is above the law. No citizen in this country has a right to break the law and not be punished for it. No one can use the defence of not knowing, yet here today Parliament not only is passing a law that will put someone above the law as a consequence, but we are doing it for not just any citizen but actually one of our own. It is an absolute disgrace for this Parliament to think it can hold one of its members above the law, then pass a law to state that even though that person has breached section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act, we will forgive him and we will pass a law retrospectively to make sure it is OK. That is an absolute outrage, and the people of this country know that. It pours disdain on this Parliament. That is the first point I want to make.

Secondly, the Labour members and those others who will be supporting this bill should be held in absolute contempt for even thinking that we can put anybody in Parliament above the law, and can legislate to correct an inaction. I ask the House whether, if somebody had inadvertently breached some law or taken some action with regard to Work and Income New Zealand, and had been found out, we would be passing a law today to state that that is OK, that we are sorry that person did that inadvertently, that although that person caused a problem we will let him or her go, and we will pass a special law that is retrospective so that that person is deemed not to have broken the law. Would we be doing that? I ask the Labour Government whether it would pass that sort of legislation for anyone. Not on your nelly! I say again that no one in Parliament—particularly Harry Duynhoven—is above the law, yet here today I feel absolutely ashamed that I am involved in a debate that does just that. This is a black day for this Parliament and this Helen Clark - led minority Labour Government. It is a black day that will go down as a disgraceful blot on the history of this Parliament. I am appalled that I have to be here to witness it, and I am absolutely delighted that our party, with others, will vote against this legislation.

Why is this legislation so broad? Why is it as wide as it is? If the Helen Clark - led minority Government is determined to correct the issues around Harry Duynhoven’s eligibility, if Government members genuinely believe that they are right, then let them correct that one mistake. The legislation that they have introduced expires at the end of this term. They have done that, they have provided that it carry through to the end of this term only, because they intend to bring in other legislation to amend the anomalies in the Electoral Act. From my perspective, two things arise out of that. The first is they could bring that legislation in tomorrow and correct the anomalies—if there are anomalies, and I can see that there are one or two. They could make that correction. [Interruption] I will come to the senior Government whip in a minute. They could do that tomorrow.

I am glad the senior Government whip is starting to interject, because he is the person I want to talk about. What are labour members covering up? Why have they made this legislation so broad that it applies not just to Harry Duynhoven but to every member in the House? Who are they covering up for? I myself have gone through the National caucus, and I have also asked the other whips whether they have any problems with their members. They have all been able to assure me that there are no problems with their parties. The only whip who has not been able to tell me that is the senior Labour whip, David Benson-Pope. He is the only whip who will not say to me that his party is clean. He is the only whip who will not come to me and say that he has checked and there is no problem with his members.

💬 David Benson-Pope: What a dirty little deceit.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is enough. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are too many interjections. This is a serious debate. Mr Carter is to be heard in relative silence.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee raised the matter of whether the Prime Minister had a British or a European passport. I ask the same question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Phil Goff, because I have heard a rumour that he might be the one with a problem. Whether that is true, I do not know. Unless those members are prepared to stand up and say yes or no, how do we know? Does the House not have the right to know? Does the public not have the right to know? Maybe it is the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or somebody else in Cabinet. Surely it is easy enough for each Minister in Cabinet to stand up and say it is not him or her. Why can those Ministers not do that? Why can we not go through each Minister, starting with the Prime Minister, and ask him or her to say whether he or she has breached the law? I would love to know the answer to that. Why can the Labour whips not stand up and say they have checked with each Cabinet Minister, and none has breached the law? We do not get that answer. It is easy enough to say. I can say it for the National members. I know that the other whips can say the same for their members. Why can the Labour Party whips not do it?

Now we have doubt, and that is the worst part of this legislation. Not only are we saying today that somebody is above the law but also we now are worried about whether there is a cover-up. Seven of the 10 members on the Privileges Committee, including Matt Robson, said that there was a vacancy. The only three who said there was some ambiguity were the Labour members. They were the Deputy Prime Minister; Margaret Wilson, the Attorney-General; and the Minister of Immigration. One has to ask oneself what those three are covering up. I wonder about that. It has to be somebody in the Labour Party. This has a smell about it that we now need to have exposed. It stinks. This is a black day for this Parliament. No one is above the law. The minority Labour Government, led by Helen Clark, should not cover up these things. Labour members should come clean and tell the House what is actually going on, so that we do not have to sit here, double-guess, and cause anxiety amongst the people of this nation as to whether they are being misled.

That is the first time I have been disappointed in a contribution from John Carter. It does neither him nor his party any credit to have insinuations like that made in what should be a very serious debate. It was not clear from his contribution that the purpose of this bill—and other members should know this—is to ensure that no member of the current Parliament loses his or her seat merely because he or she swears allegiance to, or obtains the citizenship of, another country. The bill has been introduced on the advice and recommendation of a majority of the Privileges Committee, and I urge its speedy progress through the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because of the way we vote now, we are not able to determine the reason for parties voting below their number; we have a situation where votes are hidden by that process. With regard to the Labour vote I raise the issue of whether, on this legislation, the whip is carrying the proxy of Mr Duynhoven. It is important for the House to know whether Mr Duynhoven has a proxy vote. He has been reported in the media in the last few hours as being within the precincts of Parliament—in his office, but not coming to the Chamber while this debate is going on. That is a legitimate choice, and maybe a wise choice—for him not to take part in the debate. He did appear before the Privileges Committee. But given that this debate is centred on him, I seek through you, Mr Speaker, to find out from the Labour whip, who cast a lower number of votes, whether he is carrying Mr Duynhoven’s proxy on this legislation.

I am very happy to oblige the member. I can assure the House that the Labour Party is at more than full complement in terms of its vote entitlement at this time. The vote being down by two is to accommodate the fact that the Speaker is abstaining on this question, and that Mr Duynhoven’s vote is not part of the 50 votes that I am exercising.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the unusual circumstances that we are dealing with, where we know that there is a Privileges Committee report on the Table declaring a seat vacant, and we are now, in urgency—effectively, preventing the report of that committee from being dealt with by the House—retrospectively changing the law so that the conclusions of that report cannot be given any effect, it is arguable that with this bill we are being asked to elect an MP. There is no real question about that being the consequence of what we are doing. That would constitute a change in the method of voting as stated in the Electoral Act. That is one of the six or seven—I am not sure which—entrenched provisions in that Act that require the support of 75 percent of the House. It is not a frivolous question that I am asking; it is a serious one, and a number of Speakers’ rulings relate to this matter. I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, might take whatever time is required to consult the Clerk and others, and to give us a ruling on why, in fact, this is not a bill—given the effect of it—that requires the support of 75 percent of Parliament.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked me to give thought to it. I will.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I now raise a different point of order, but a very serious one, which I believe you should give very serious consideration to, because it concerns the reputation of the House and, indeed, of yourself. You told the House—and I am not questioning it—when you were referring this matter to the Privileges Committee: “I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.” I think that in doing so you were mindful of the fact that the way that vacancies in Parliament used to be declared actually required a resolution of the House. If you look at McGee, you will see that it sets out that the Speaker can do so only on being ordered by the House; the Speaker then issues warrants. That, of course, is a matter that caused some debate within Parliament, and Parliament decided to change the law. We decided that it was not appropriate that a vacancy be declared as a result of a party vote, and we changed the law so that it now is not a question for Parliament; it is actually a matter of statute law. The instruction to you in the statute is quite clear; section 129(1) states: “If the Speaker is satisfied that the seat of a member elected to represent an electoral district has become vacant, the Speaker must, without delay, publish a notice of the vacancy and its cause in the Gazette.”

Mr Speaker, you quite properly said that you, as Speaker, did not feel that you could do that until you had heard from the House. Well, you now have heard from the House. The Government cannot manipulate the Order Paper. It is not that you said you would wait until you had heard from the Privileges Committee debate; you said you would wait until you had heard from the House. We are now in a position where you, as Speaker, have heard that the Privileges Committee listened to this matter, and, after listening to it, every single member of that committee, I think, actually thinks the seat is vacant. The National Party members on the committee, Mr Carter and Mr Mapp, were quite clear in their minds. The Green member of Parliament, who actually turned up to the Privileges Committee saying she did not think Mr Duynhoven’s seat was vacant, listened to the submissions from the Solicitor-General and from the Clerk of the House—who you have told us is the best Clerk in the Commonwealth—who were quite unanimous that there is no ambiguity: the seat is vacant, and has been from, at least, 11 June. The United Future member of Parliament, who also arrived at the Privileges Committee saying he did not think the seat was vacant, listened to the argument and said that, yes, it was. I was of the view when I read it—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Will the member come to the point a little more quickly.

I am making this clear to you, Mr Speaker, because you know all those facts. You know them from the House. They have been recorded; they are now in Hansard. Your statutory duty is to act without delay. It is not a matter that you do in the House, and I am saying to you that your duty, for the integrity of this Parliament and for your own integrity, is to go from this place to your office right now, declare the seat vacant, and issue the writs. Not to do so gives the impression that, in fact, you are colluding with the Government in trying to prevent this part of the Electoral Act from taking place. I just say, Mr Speaker, that I am concerned about your reputation, but I am also concerned about the reputation of this House. That is your duty, and you should go and do it.

I tell the member that I always listen to the points he makes, because he is a senior member. Of course, I want to say only one thing: I am certainly not colluding with the Government, at all, on this issue, and I make that statement absolutely. I will take note of the member’s point of order, as with Mr Brownlee’s, and I will report a little later.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Speaking to the point of order—

No. I have had the point of order, and I will go away and reflect on it.

Second Reading