Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill

I want to start by saying a couple of things. Firstly, I hope that during the coming hours those who are in the Chair will have full regard to the fact that this bill has not been to a select committee. There is no chance for anyone to make submissions on this legislation. We want to spend some time on working through the individual parts of the bill. I also hope the Government does not carry forward the approach it has taken so far today, which has basically been for its members to sit there—apart from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland issues, who sits and knits— and ignore the issue, and not to take calls other than to use up a little bit of time. [Interruption] I welcome the Minister with responsibility for Auckland issues taking a call later on, when she has de-tangled her wool.

The title of this bill does not reflect what it really does, which is save one particular member, Mr Duynhoven. We are changing the law to ensure that Mr Duynhoven is deemed never to have broken it. Nor does this title reflect the fact that there is another Labour MP who is caught by this. Parliament has not been given the courtesy of knowing who that is, but we know that the Labour whips have steadfastly refused to state in the House that every other Labour MP is clean, and that no other Labour MP has carried out the same offence that Mr Duynhoven has been found to have carried out. So one can only draw the conclusion that there is another Labour MP in this situation. The senior Government whip knows it, and he is part of the code of silence in this Parliament on this issue. I hope the journalists in this country put some effort into finding out who the other Labour MP is. We can guarantee that every National MP is clean, but can the Labour whip guarantee that every Labour MP is clean? No, he cannot—

💬 Simon Power: He won’t.

—and he will not, because he knows that that is not the case. I flag that we will be voting for the amendments put by other parties that limit this bill to being for just Mr Duynhoven, although we will, of course, be opposing the bill. Given that the Government will have a majority to force the bill through—which is outrageous in itself—the bill should at least, in those circumstances, apply only to Mr Duynhoven. I hope that if the Government keeps this bill as wide as it is, other parties will, in the course of the debate, decide that it would be best if this bill were not passed in its current form—in fact, not passed at all. A number of amendments will be put by the National Party, as well as by other parties, as we work through the process, and we will certainly be looking for opportunities at the appropriate time to talk on those issues.

I want also to pick up the issue that this bill effectively pre-empts a decision that has been required of the Speaker. It would be far better if that were also referred to in the title of the legislation—that this bill is pre-empting a decision that we believe very, very strongly should have been made independently of this process. The ability to make that decision has been there for about 24 hours. We regret, with a huge amount of sadness, that that decision has not been made.

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.

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.

I rise to speak on clause 1 of this important constitutional measure, which is going through under urgency, and which is introducing retrospective changes. The public has not had an opportunity to discuss it. I hope that the Chair will recognise that fact. I give notice that the ACT party is putting down a series of amendments—firstly to the title, but there will be others further through. We do not want the law to apply to ourselves. We pledge allegiance to this country, and we do not want the ability to give allegiance to anyone else, so I hope the House will allow ACT members of Parliament to be exempt. We looked at a number of other MPs who we think might be covered, and I give notice to the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Jim Sutton, and other MPs that I have put down an amendment regarding each one of them, and I challenge them to support my amendment to show that they give allegiance only to this country.

💬 Simon Power: Interesting tactic.

Absolutely. Members might like to add some other people to the list. The rumours that are now going around regarding the real reason for this bill should be a matter of great concern to them. On the question of the title of the bill, I think it is wrong. First, I think we should just change the title to the “Elect Harry Duynhoven Bill”, because that is what we are doing. That is a proper title; there is nothing frivolous about it. Alternatively, I think the bill should be called the “Allow the Rt Hon Helen Clark to Have a Foreign Passport Bill”, because that will be the effect of this bill. This bill will allow Helen Clark to have a foreign passport, through her spouse, so let us put that in the title.

I challenge members opposite to vote for my amendments, and to be upfront. What we are doing is saying as a Parliament that any member of Parliament can now give allegiance to any foreign power. On behalf of ACT New Zealand—that is our full title—I can say that we have no doubt about whom we support, and I hope that members will at least allow ACT MPs to exempt themselves. We are quite happy to do that. We do not think this law is ambiguous; we think it is quite clear. We support the law and do not want to be exempt from it. If other parties do not want to be stained by the suggestion that they serve two masters, I suggest that they should move amendments to exempt themselves. I challenge those MPs whom I have named to vote for my amendment to show that they have not taken out foreign passports, and that they do not serve anyone else except the people of New Zealand.

💬 Barbara Stewart: Who paid them?

That is a very good question. Things are getting worse and worse. I just say to members that this is a serious bill, and those are serious amendments. This is not a bill about electoral vacancies. As Mr Jones said, we do not know of any vacancies. This is a bill to elect Harry Duynhoven, so let us be upfront: that is what we are doing. That is the first proposal I am putting up.

The second one is that this will allow an MP like the Prime Minister to have a British passport. Do we think that is right? [Interruption] The member should support my amendments if she is shocked at the thought that we have a Prime Minister who may have a foreign passport—and one can imagine Helen Clark not wanting to queue up; I mean, she is overseas so often.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Have you got one?

I assure the member that I have never taken out a foreign passport as a member of this Parliament—never in my whole career. Can the member give me the same assurance about his colleagues? That is interesting—there is silence. Does the member not think that the Parliament and the public of New Zealand are entitled to an answer to my question? Mr Carter is silent on that, too—talk about contempt! He is not even prepared to tell the public of New Zealand whether the Labour Party serves this country or some other country.

I will take a moment at the start of my contribution to follow on from what Richard Prebble has just been talking about. This morning I raised the issue of the Prime Minister’s status in relation to this bill, and I simply asked whether she has dual citizenship, and whether she has applied for another passport in recent times. I am reliably informed that that has been put to the Prime Minister by members of the media, and she has described that as a scurrilous lie.

No lie was ever told, because no allegation was made. A question was asked, and could not be answered by the whips. So I am very pleased that the Prime Minister is now out there saying: “It’s not me.” However, it leaves open the question, who is it? I say to the person who was described earlier today as the Philby of the Labour Party that he or she should come clean. The member should put his or her hand up and say, “It’s me.”, so that we do not have to go through the ignominy of having every other member of the Labour Party besides Harry Duynhoven put in a position of having to defend him or herself when the media asks that question.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Some will refuse to answer.

That is a very good point. When the media asks those members, “Are you one of the vacancies referred to in the title of this bill?”, some will refuse to answer. They will say: “Sorry, I can’t answer you. I don’t want to answer. I can’t answer.” What will happen is that people like Clayton Cosgrove will have to stand up and say: “It’s not me.” But then I think, well, the name “Cosgrove” is very Irish. He has probably got an Irish passport. [Interruption] Oh, he said he has an Irish passport. How long has he had it, and has he renewed it since the last election?

💬 Hon Member: Yes.

There is someone who straight away is a little bit dubious. Then there is our friend over at the back of the Chamber, the great white hope for the Labour Party, the Hon David Cunliffe, who spent many, many years in the United States. Did he get residence while he was there? Was he granted the right to hold a US passport? Is he on the phone to the ambassador now, as he was the other day, checking on New Zealand First members? Is he on the phone to the ambassador now, saying: “Listen, just keep quiet about my arrangements, would you?”, and saying to the media here in New Zealand: “I can’t comment on whether I am one of the vacancies.”?

Then there is the Hon Chris Carter. Most of us would have said he is one of the great vacancies in this Parliament, particularly in respect of some of his handling recently of the Auckland Regional Council situation. Is he able to tell us for certain that, due to his relationship, he does not have a right to another passport somewhere else?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I do have a right to another passport.

There we go! He has just confessed. He is another person who is entitled to dual citizenship. Has he been in the bottom drawer, reading up the manuals to see whether he could receive one of these passports? That would make him, under the law, one of the vacancies. It will be very interesting later in the day when Mr Prebble’s amendments are put up one by one, and Labour members are asked to back themselves or tell the truth, and come up to the Parliament and say: “It’s me.”

This bill, in its title, is quite explicit: “Electoral (Vacancies)”. It is not the “Electoral (Fix it up for Harry Duynhoven) Amendment Bill”; it is the “Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill”. Perhaps the Minister in the chair might tell us why it was necessary to have both paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 55(1) of the Act changed, when to change just paragraph (b) would do it.

I want to pick up a theme developed by my honourable colleague Gerry Brownlee—“vacancies”. I have read the dictionary on the word “vacancies”, which means more than one vacancy. It is plural. I think the media of this country have a duty to phone all Labour Party members and ask them whether they have applied for a passport since the last election, whether they have been granted a passport since the last election, and whether they have sworn allegiance to a foreign prince or power since the last election. Those are straightforward questions that are easy to answer.

💬 Simon Power: Ask Matt Robson.

The Hon Matt Robson, a former Minister—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: He said he didn’t. He’s on the record.

He is on the record. Clayton Cosgrove said he is eligible.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: No I didn’t.

He said he is eligible. The confession is there.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: He’s clean.

He is clean. What about the Hon Chris Carter? What is his answer?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I neither confirm nor deny.

Well, there is an opening. We should remember what the situation is in this Parliament. We must take the word of each and every member on the face of it; otherwise they would be misleading Parliament and it would be a matter of privilege. Mr Carter might see that as a frivolous matter. Given that his interjection—which is on the record—was that he could neither confirm nor deny, he now has a serious obligation to the Parliament, and to the nation, to say which is true.

Obviously, this piece of legislation, using the plural word “vacancies” in its title, was intended to cover Mr Carter. I asked him a simple question about whether it applied to him—and his interjection, which is on the record, has left us uncertain. I think it is clear in this situation that Parliament and the country are entitled to know what the facts are.

In the course of our contributions we will be asking that question of every single Labour Party member. We will pause and give them the opportunity to reply, because they have a duty to do that. That is what the law says. If the Government genuinely believes that it wanted to fix up one particular situation, it could have done that. Mr Peters, along with Mr Dunne, is on the record as saying he would have supported a narrow provision. Actually, it is unclear with Mr Dunne; he may well support a wide provision—I see he is shaking his head in denial. So, as I understand it, he will be voting against this legislation. I know that New Zealand First will be voting against it.

National is clear that there should be a by-election, irrespective of the outcome of that election. It is irrelevant; the law takes its course. The Government should have called the bill the “Electoral (Vacancies and By-election) Amendment Act”, because that is the normal and proper consequence. That would be the Government’s proper duty.

I refer to the Speaker’s ruling on this issue. It states that the Speaker is not necessarily the person who decides whether a vacancy actually is a vacancy. Well, I have news for the Speaker: the vacancy exists, and has existed since 11 June. In my view, the proper course for the Speaker was to immediately recognise that fact. That would then lead to the consequence of a by-election. The Government could have done something it said it could not do: bring in retrospective legislation for Parliament to elect Mr Duynhoven to the seat. Even the Government would have said that that would be going too far. In principle, what is the difference? Is that not what we are really doing here?

Mr Peters himself said he has been through a by-election and knows what a difficult process it is, and there are costs. I can understand the psychology of that. But we are not here for that; we are here to implement the law. That is the test.

The last speech forces me to make a presentation, because it shows how little respect the National Party has for intellectual property. It was Dail Jones who spied the word “vacancies”, not Gerry Brownlee. Mr Mapp did not correctly attribute the idea. I say to Mr Jones and all the other members of the Committee that there is no conspiracy here about “vacancies”. The law is drafted as a general provision, and because it is a general provision it would be wrong to use the word “vacancy”. The point about the drafting is to be grammatically correct. It is a general provision, as it should be, and therefore the plural word “vacancies” has to be used. There is no drama there, at all.

I do not know where Mr Barker got that advice from, but it is nonsense. It is utter drivel to say that the law is drafted as a general provision and therefore must be worded in the plural. This is a bill for Harry Duynhoven—for one member—that is, a “vacancy”. Mr Dail Jones is quite right that the suggestion of “vacancies” is a clear indication that the Labour Party is not admitting that it has members other than Harry Duynhoven who are caught by this provision. We want to know who the Philbys, the Burgesses, the Macleans, and the Blunts of the Labour Party are. Who are these people who cannot be trusted to behave in the national interest in their own country? Who are the Philbys, the Burgesses, the Macleans, and the ones who most resemble Blunt? Do members know who Blunt was? He was the artistic adviser to the Queen, and he had certain proclivities, which they all had. I cannot mention that fact, of course, but they had certain proclivities that made them susceptible to serving foreign agencies. So who are those people in the Labour Party? That is why the word “vacancies” is there.

That is why we have in brackets a clear admission without the names, and it surely behoves the Labour Party to front up today in this important part of the Committee stage and tell us what is going on. If it does not, we will find out eventually anyway. Mr Prebble is right to put up a series of personalised amendments, and we will find out, one by one, whether Labour members are prepared to admit it at the time.

When members think about the importance of this issue in our constitutional law, they cannot surely argue anything other than that this Government has been absolutely frivolous with our constitution. I want to say this to them—[Interruption]—and I want to tell the member for Waimakariri, because it is very important, that this sort of arrogance and pride goes before a fall. In my rather extensive political career, I have seen parties on the rise, and I have seen them on the fall. That member’s party is on the fall.

💬 Rodney Hide: Even your own party has gone up and down a bit.

Yes, but right now we are going up, and nothing will stop us now. Pride goes before a fall, and arrogance is what usually befalls members of Parliament who think that because they have “MP” after their names or “Minister” before their names, they are somehow now of a special species, and above the ruck of a human existence that requires certain standards and decencies to be met.

So I say again—please let us know who these other members are. Let us know what their offence might be, because it is certainly far greater than Harry Duynhoven’s. We ask that the title of this bill be narrowed to Harry Duynhoven—the person whom we had a select committee hearing about, and the person whom this bill is all about. Accepting that the plague that beset MI5 and the British Secret Service seems to have beset us as a country via the Labour Party’s Cabinet and back-benchers, who are these people who are not prepared to tell us what they have been doing about swearing allegiance to their own country?

I feel it is necessary to respond to the Hon Rick Barker’s comments about the wording of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill being a general provision, and therefore not requiring the tense in the title to be singular. What a load of rubbish! Do we call it the “Income Taxes Act”, or do we call it the “Income Tax Act”? The simple fact of the matter is that whether the title is in a singular or plural fashion is extraordinarily pertinent in this case. To refer to the “Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill” makes it quite clear that somebody else is sitting on the Labour Party benches who has done exactly what poor Hon Harry Duynhoven has done.

My colleague Mr Jones, who pointed out the “s” on the end of “Vacancies”, made a fine contribution to this debate. It has enabled the Committee to focus on the fact that more than one vacancy is occurring at present. Rick Barker’s contribution—that the general provision is a drafting technique—is the most ridiculous contribution this House has had from him, and that is quite a big ask.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: You mean since his second reading speech?

Since his second reading speech. I see that Mr Barker must now be back in his office, signing off some JP nominations.

What is clear from the title to this bill is that somebody is sitting on the Labour Party benches who is not clear of the mud in this instance. I know that many of my colleagues have asked the whips to confirm which of their colleagues are in this position. I see Lynne Pillay and Helen Duncan have come down and joined us in the Chamber. Have either of those members created a vacancy in the terms of this bill? There is no response from those members. They had an opportunity to put themselves in the clear—to make it clear to the New Zealand public that it was not them who made the mistake, but that it lies at the feet of another member of their caucus.

The ACT party, I have to concede in a clever manoeuvre, has now required each of those members listed, by way of amendment—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Why are you surprised?

It was a bit of a surprise. Each of those members will now have to vote for or against an amendment as to his or her specific residency. I think that will be a very interesting procedure for the Committee to watch, because at that point those members will be personally declaring, by way of their vote, whether they themselves have created a vacancy in terms of this bill.

I just want to say that introducing retrospective legislation into this House requires us to leap a pretty big hurdle. It has to be an issue of such seriousness to the country that most parties are prepared to support it—a high-level constitutional principle that for some reason has been overlooked, or has created a bizarre circumstance. This is not one of those situations. Be it on purpose or by accident, Harry Duynhoven has broken the law. It does not matter how old the law is. It does not matter whether his intentions were well placed. It does not matter what his majority is. It does not matter whether he would win the seat. What matters is the fact that the law was broken.

Matt Robson got to his feet and said: “Actually you should be able to apply for dual citizenship. What a stupid rule.” If that is the case, do not limit the bill to this Parliament. If, as the Hon Matt Robson says it is, dual citizenship for MPs is a sound idea, then by all means the Government can pass legislation—if it can muster the numbers—to say that that is the case. It should not limit it to one term, because that raises the suspicions of the New Zealand public to the fact that there is somebody else in this Chamber that this legislation applies to—they can see that the title is plural—and that the Government wants to limit it to one term of Parliament. That is a gross abuse of the parliamentary process.

I see that the Hon Marian Hobbs has joined us in the Chamber. Is she the member who has created the other vacancy? There is no answer there, either.

I want to make just a few short comments in the title debate. In my view, the title should refer to the equal treatment of both list and electorate MPs. The mischief that the bill is attempting to cure impacts directly on the ability of list MPs to retain some modicum of security in their seats, should they also be subject to section 55 as it currently stands.

MMP provides for two kinds of MPs, one of whom is an electorate MP, who represents a community of locality. Those communities have specific interests that arise out of their residing in a particular area and within a particular community. It is the traditional form of representation, and it is quite right that we continue to have that representation in this Parliament.

But MMP also provides for the representation of communities of interest, whereby groups of people who span across the whole of the nation, who are equally committed to various issues, are able to have those issues represented in Parliament. Many of those issues are, and still remain, locally focused—for example, the pumping of sewage into the sea is both a local and a national issue. Those issues often cross communities, but as part of this process it is nonetheless very important that we have a system that enables the representation of communities of interest, as well.

This provision treats those different MPs differently, and it treats the representation of communities of interest and communities of locality differently, as well. The Greens consider that to be a very serious unintended consequence of this provision, and an indication that it has simply not kept up with changing times.

The other major issue for us is the general consideration of New Zealand law regarding dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is supported and recognised as acceptable in this country. We live in an increasingly diverse society. All of the diverse interests in our communities deserve to be recognised and represented in this Parliament. The representatives of those people and interests should also be entitled to serve in this Parliament if they themselves come from diverse backgrounds.

In the 150 years of this Parliament we have been through the various debates about the representation of interests—for example, women’s interests by women, Māori interests by Māori people, Island interests by Pacific Islanders. But we are still at a very early stage in that process, indicated by the fact that we still have only one Muslim MP. That MP has only recently come into this Parliament in the last election. We are still in the process of trying to work through how to best represent the various diverse backgrounds and interests of the people who live and contribute to our country. There needs to be a sensible approach in the law for recognising that diversity within this Parliament as represented by the various MPs. While this bill takes a rather dramatic approach to doing that, none the less it makes space for a proper debate and consideration of the way in which diversity—and dual citizenship, in particular—is represented in this Parliament, and the effect and acceptability of dual citizenship.

We must protect Parliament from the treachery that section 55 is trying to preserve us from, while at the same time protect every citizen’s right—including the rights of MPs as citizens—to hold, openly acknowledge, and exercise their genealogy and heritage within their dual citizenship. The Greens consider that this is an appropriate way to do that, and reflect that the bill opens the capacity for that discussion to happen where it might not otherwise.

This is a very small bill. It is printed on one sheet of A3 paper folded in half. On the front we have the explanatory note.

The title clause actually has two subclauses, which is unusual in itself; we have two subclauses in the title clause. The first states: “(1) This Act is the Electoral (Vacancies) ...“. The point has been made that the title has the plural “Vacancies”. We know that the bill is all about “Saving Private Harry”, that that is what drove it, but why put the plural there? Who else does this bill apply to? Is it Clayton Cosgrove with his Irish heritage, or is it Phillip Field, the Minister in the chair? Do members remember that when Phillip Field joined this Parliament he changed his name? He became Taito Phillip Field. Why?

💬 Simon Power: Ask him!

I will ask him, and I want him to take a call. His family in his homeland of Samoa made him a chief—a taito. Whether it was on Upolu or Savaii, I am not sure, but perhaps he will tell us. Did he have to sign or take allegiance to the village that he has responsibility for? Actually, a taito’s role relates to more than a village; it is not that of a matai. I think he has an extensive regional governance role in Samoa. Does he have a Samoan passport? Is he prepared to tell the Committee whether he has a Samoan passport? Is he prepared to support and vote for Richard Prebble’s amendment, so that the whole Committee can know what his status is? When we see “Vacancies” in the title, we realise it is not a technical drafting matter; it is deliberate use of the plural.

There is nothing more important than the Electoral Act in a representative democracy. It is the basis of our democracy. What the House is doing here today makes this possibly one of the most shameful days in this Parliament’s proud history. It is what we would expect of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Moi’s Kenya—when people fiddle with the Electoral Act to accommodate themselves. That is what this Government is doing; it is using the tyranny of its majority, supported by its lapdogs, United Future and the Greens, to drive through a disgraceful measure that defies the Electoral Act.

It is very clear. When the Solicitor-General and the esteemed Clerk of the House, who is recognised as the best in the Commonwealth, give the clear and uncomplicated advice that section 55 is clear, and that a vacancy does exist, then the Speaker should act forthwith. We had a statement from the Speaker today explaining that if in doubt, he must consult the House, but there was no doubt; the advice he had from his own Clerk, the best in the Commonwealth, and the Solicitor-General of this country was that there was no doubt, so he did not need to worry about that. He had protected his proverbial, which he is prone to do; he had taken advice, and the clear advice was that he should act. He failed to act. It has been obfuscated, and now the Labour Government is furthering that obfuscation, and trying to cloud the issue. It is a disgrace.

We may not like the measure in the Act that has triggered this matter, and it may not be fair; sometimes the law is not fair. But if we, as representatives who are charged as legislators with making the law, are prepared to fiddle the law when it is inconvenient or does not suit us, what signal does that send to the country? That is what the principle is all about.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: It’s terrible.

It is a terrible signal. I see we have another Minister in the chair—Mr Rick Barker. When he was in the chair a few moments ago he had the temerity to accuse the National Party of lacking principle. When he led off he accused the National Party of lacking principle. I ask Mr Barker where the principle is behind this. The Clerk of the House and the Solicitor-General say that the law is clear, yet the Government uses the tyranny of its majority to change the Electoral Act in order to cover an inconvenience and an embarrassment. It may not be fair, but that is not the point. People up and down this country are hit with the law every day.

The debate on this bill arises out of the particular situation that relates to Harry Duynhoven. When the Privileges Committee considered the Duynhoven case it made certain conclusions in respect of him. The way in which the bill is drafted extends the provisions far beyond Harry Duynhoven. I will put an amendment to Part 1 to limit the application of this bill to the period that commenced on 14 August last year and ended on 6 August this year. In the event that that amendment is not accepted, United Future will not support the third reading.

The way in which the bill is crafted at the moment potentially creates an absurd situation. At one level the bill deals with the particular situation that relates to Harry Duynhoven, and validates his eligibility to remain a member of Parliament. But by being prospective for the balance of the term of this Parliament, the bill does two things. Firstly, it states that anyone else—and we have all heard the rumours and the speculation about whoever else might be involved—in the same situation is protected, but it actually goes further than that. It implicitly issues an invitation to all members of this House to proceed to make the telephone calls, make the inquiries, and check their eligibility, and to do so with impunity, secure that their actions are protected until the next general election.

I do not think that was actually what the Privileges Committee intended or considered when it examined this matter. I also do not think it is what the Government intended or considered. We have an apple and a pear here. We do not have a consistent flow of the same situation. One could call the apple “Harry”, and call the pear someone else, but the point at issue that provoked this debate and led to, firstly, the matter going to the Privileges Committee, and, secondly, this bill, was Harry Duynhoven’s eligibility to remain a member of this House. That is what the issue ought to revolve round. The way in which the bill is crafted—I suspect it is probably reflected in the title it has been given as a consequence—broadens the scope so that it does not just cover other people who might be involved but creates the absurd situation where everyone is invited, by implication, to engage in the very activity that led to this bill in the first place.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: One would be crazy not to.

That is probably true. People are now given not just a legal protection but a legal encouragement to do so, because they have a 2-year window of opportunity. That is why I will be putting forward an amendment to Part 1, to deal with the intent of the legislation. The intent was to refer to the circumstances relating to Harry Duynhoven, and a limited application that ceased at 6 August this year would deal with that situation. But to move beyond that creates a situation that is absolutely and utterly absurd, and that is not acceptable as far as we are concerned.

I am so pleased to hear the previous speaker, the Hon Peter Dunne, make it very clear to this Committee that unless the Government agrees to his amendment to limit the scope of this bill to the circumstances that gave rise to it—that is, the Harry Duynhoven case—then United Future will not support it. I am very pleased to hear that, because I was deeply disappointed to hear last night Peter Dunne still vacillating. I have always regarded Peter Dunne as one who would uphold the constitutional integrity of this House. So I am very pleased to hear he will not support the bill, if his amendment is not accepted.

However, that does not make any difference to National’s position. We do not agree with the bill, in any event. That is no reflection on Harry Duynhoven, who acted innocently. But, unfortunately, whether or not he acted innocently, the fact is he broke the law. The circumstances giving rise to this bill are very simple. In applying for Dutch citizenship he breached the law. The moment he did that, his seat became vacant. It was a breach of section 55 of the Electoral Act. The moment that happened, certain actions should have flowed. The Speaker should have declared that seat to be vacant, and this House should have gone into recess. There should have been a by-election. It is just not credible for the Government to say to National: “Well, your party wouldn’t do very well anyway, if there was a by-election.” Who cares that that would be the case, quite frankly? There is a principle here that is far more important than who would win or lose a by-election, and it is the principle that parliamentarians should uphold the law. The fact we are here debating this bill shows the absolute cynicism of a Government that would use the law to benefit itself. I am absolutely outraged by the actions of this Government.

I also disagree with Metiria Turia suggesting that because the demographics of our country are changing—and they are—and numbers of our population have citizenship of more than one country, somehow that makes a difference to what we ought to uphold in this House. It is not an unreasonable constraint on members of Parliament to expect that when they swear allegiance in this House to this country, when they seek to manage the affairs of this country, they must bear allegiance to one country only, and that is this country—New Zealand. For those outside this House, fine! They can hold as many passports as they like, and bear allegiance to whomever. But from the way this bill is drafted, and Peter Dunne, I think, traversed this very clearly a few minutes ago, it seems to send an invitation to all of us in this House to make the calls, to start resuscitating, or applying for, other citizenships that we may be entitled to. I might consider now applying for a Tino Rangatiratanga passport. I probably will not, because I do not think that is acceptable. If I am going to stand in this House as a Member of Parliament, then I should bear the allegiance I have sworn to bear, and that excludes my applying for any other passport, even if I am entitled to do that.

But that is the impact of this bill, and it is wrong. It is outrageous that a Government would use its power—its numbers—to inflict this kind of legislation on this House, and to send a message to the public at large that if the law does not suit the Government, it will change it anyway. Even worse, the Government will put the House into urgency to do it. The Government talked about the cost involved in a by-election; well, what about the cost of putting the House into urgency? It is outrageous.

What we have is a very, very misnamed bill. If it were properly titled, it would be called the “Saving Harry Duynhoven from the Voters of New Plymouth Bill”. But that would not be correct, either. From the way the bill is drafted, it is not just a matter of “Saving Private Harry”. It should be titled the “Saving Harry Duynhoven (and Unnamed Members of the Labour Party) from the Voters Bill”. We on this side suspect that a list member or two are caught up in this bill. The significance of that is that those members are gone; there is no by-election—they are gone! I look across to my colleague and friend the Hon Peter Dunne—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: You’ve never said that before!

When the Hon Peter Dunne of United Future had the unfortunate and sad circumstance of one of his MPs being caught up in the Electoral Act—which could happen to anyone—did he say to the Government: “Oh, you need our vote, Prime Minister, so change the law. Because Kelly Chal has been elected, change the law.”? No, he did not. I do not think it would ever occur to Peter Dunne that the Government would change the Electoral Act to accommodate a member of Parliament. It would not occur to him. So what is the difference now? The Labour Government has introduced a measure that should be titled the “Saving Harry Duynhoven (and Unnamed Members of the Labour Party) from the Voters Bill”. I point out that if it were a list member, that person would be gone, and the next person on the list would come in.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Who is it?

Who is the next person on the list? The Government obviously does not like that individual, and also does not like the thought of another by-election. But, again, as my friend and colleague the Rt Hon Peter Dunne pointed out—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Now you’ve promoted me. It gets better and better!

Well, I have never before heard so much common sense in 5 minutes. This bill is not just about saving the Labour Party MPs who are in trouble and do not even have the courage to front up; it is actually about saving, as Peter Dunne pointed out, every MP in the House in the future who decides to sign up to a foreign power. Is that seriously what this Parliament wants? We could have Nandor Tanczos, Rastaman, signing up to Jamaica. We could have Helen Clark signing up to the UN. We could have my colleague Richard Worth signing up to Monaco as a bolt hole after the next election, to hide his face. He could be signing up to that one. We could have Clayton Cosgrove, after Ron Mark has beaten him, declaring himself a political refugee, throwing himself on the mercy of a country that has even slacker immigration rules than we do, and floating in a boat somewhere, but in the meantime saying under this bill: “Actually, I can sign up to a foreign power.”

💬 Richard Worth: Where would you go?

Oh, I would go straight to Epsom as the member for Epsom. I tell Mr Worth that ACT members do not need to sign up anywhere; we are New Zealand citizens with New Zealand passports. We do not sign up to any power overseas, unlike the Labour Party. Think about it: what sort of ministry is Helen Clark running when the Hon Harry Duynhoven, as far as we can figure out, has not signed anything this year as a Minister except his allegiance to the Dutch Government? He is getting paid big bucks as a Minister, and the only thing that he has done as a Minister—and let us be clear about this—of the Crown is to sign his allegiance to a foreign power.

I join this title debate wanting to refer to this bill as the “Double Standards Bill”, and I have some questions for the Minister in the chair. Six weeks ago the Solicitor-General alleged that I had broken the law with regard to the Guardianship Act. The Attorney-General said that if I had broken the law, then, regardless of whether the law should be changed, I had to face the music. I had to take the consequence of breaking the law as it stood that day. Furthermore, one of the Government Ministers, Damien O’Connor, went even further. He said that any member of Parliament who breaks the law has to face the full consequences. Well, I want to know what is different about this. Now we have the Solicitor-General saying that a member of the Government—a fellow Minister—has breached the Electoral Act.

In both instances, I think that a majority in this Parliament would prefer that the law were changed. A majority of the House actually supported the introduction of the new Care of Children Bill, which would have made it plain that my actions did not, in any way, breach the law, because those new provisions allow publication of proceedings of the Family Court, provided that one does not mention names, and that was clearly the case in my instance. So in both instances it is probable that a majority of Parliament would say that the law was outdated and needed to change.

But I want to know from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, why the Government’s top law enforcement officer will drag me before the highest court in the land and put me in the dock, put me to huge private expense to defend myself, but a different set of rules apply for Harry Duynhoven. I would like to know from the Minister, Rick Barker, why there is a different rule for Harry Duynhoven compared with myself. Can any member on the Government benches please explain to me why, when the Solicitor-General alleges that I broke the law—even though the Government has introduced a bill to change it—I have to face the music, but when it comes to Harry Duynhoven the Government has a different standard? The silence from the Government benches says it all. I know and every member of this Parliament knows in his or her heart of hearts why it is different. Because Harry Duynhoven is in the Government and I am in the Opposition.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: No.

That is the reason. I challenge Mr Matt Robson to get to his feet and explain to this Committee why, when the Solicitor-General alleges that I broke the law, I have to face the music in the High Court, but Harry Duynhoven is going to be saved by an Act of Parliament. I ask the Government members whether they would support an amendment—I am not asking for it; I am happy to be accountable for my actions— that would have me retrospectively saved. If it is good enough for Harry Duynhoven, why is it not good enough for me?

💬 Rodney Hide: We should all have a clause!

Rodney Hide wants a retrospective provision so that anybody who has ever done anything to breach the law is exempted. Well, that might be the sort of thing they would do in Zimbabwe, but not the Parliament of New Zealand. I say to the Minister in the chair that we should have a standard that is higher than this sort of politics, which says there is one rule for Government members and a different set of rules for the Opposition. That is an awful commentary on this Parliament. It is two standards of citizenship. It shows the double standards in this House, and we deserve some explanation. I want to hear from the Attorney-General and from Damien O’Connor, who were saying so loudly just 2 months ago that Nick Smith has to answer the law—that the Solicitor-General has said that, so that is what has to happen. I want to hear from a Government member why, when it comes to Harry Duynhoven, things are different. I will be taking call after call to ask for that explanation because I believe this Committee deserves an answer.

I move, That the question be now put.

After listening to the debate today, it does seem from the Opposition side of the Committee that we have had, yet again, little—or indeed, no—contribution or justification from the Government side with regard to this particular bill. This is yet another day of shame for this Government, especially. But it is worse than that, because it is a day of shame for Parliament. The television cameras and the Hansard record of the proceedings of this debate will show the public, yet again, that the Government and Parliament are seen to be looking after one of their own. Whereas members of the public down on Lambton Quay, or in the farms and valleys of New Zealand, are left to their own devices to face the full force of the law, parliamentarians, it would seem, do not.

Some years ago a rather honourable gentleman by the name of Lord Carrington stood in the House of Commons when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina, and said words to the effect that he had not known of that event, but he should have known. We have a Minister of this Government, Harry Duynhoven, who is a nice chap and all the rest of it, but who is not actually doing what I think is the honourable thing. He should be saying he did not know, but he should have known. How often do we see, right throughout the parliaments of the Western democratic countries, honourable members standing in their parliaments and saying those things? They say they did not know about something, but they fall on their sword, resign, and then ask the people—it would be the people of New Plymouth, in this case—to make a determination as to whether they were right or wrong, and whether their behaviour was right or honourable.

What I think is so wrong about this bill is that it takes away from Mr Duynhoven the opportunity to do the honourable thing. Harry Duynhoven could come down to the Chamber at any stage, even in 2 minutes time, and say to this Committee that he has just handed his resignation to the Speaker because he is an honourable man. But this Government has denied Harry Duynhoven the opportunity to do that. The question is why that is so. My answer is that it is because there are other members of this Government who are less honourable than Harry Duynhoven, and who are hiding behind Harry Duynhoven’s proper move in recognising that he has broken the law. How often do we hear the people of this country say that they demand one standard and one law for all people in this country? Yet again, we see nepotism. We see the Government looking after its own, because Harry Duynhoven is a decent chap.

I cannot help but reflect on the fact that for the first time in about—well, in my time in this Parliament, the polls are starting to show that this Government is not as popular as it thought it was. The opportunity for the public, or, indeed, the people of New Plymouth, to express their opinions to this Government on things like the “flatulence tax” and the foreshore and seabed issue is an opportunity that this Government will run a mile from. That seems to me to be why this bill is proceeding. I am perfectly sure that the Government would have polled on this issue. It would have been flat out on the phones over the last week or so to determine public opinion, and it does not want to test that public opinion.

So we will not have a by-election, and Harry Duynhoven is being denied the opportunity to behave in an honourable fashion. According to the Speaker, each one of us is an honourable member of this House. Yet, in my view, Mr Duynhoven has been denied the opportunity to express that honour in a very overt and upfront way.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak to the title of this bill. I start by saying that title debates clearly provide an opportunity to consider two issues. The first is the factual accuracy of the title, and the second is its legal accuracy. The point has already been made that in the context of this title, it is significant that the bill is called the Electoral (Vacancies)—with a plural on that nominal—Amendment Bill. Clearly, it is contemplated that others in the House have crossed the line that Harry Duynhoven has unfortunately crossed.

The reality is probably that about 30 people in this Parliament are entitled to the citizenship of more than one country. Whether they actually carry passports—and some of them do—issued by other countries is perhaps not the point. But we face a setting where there are possibly multiple breaches of the provision set out in section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. I believe, as others have urged, that we are entitled to know whom those people are. This bill is being promoted to deal with one alleged irregularity, that of Mr Duynhoven, but it masks the activities of other members.

I have listened with a degree of bemusement to the personal attacks on me in the last few days, which have ranged from the childish to the stupid, over my role as an honorary consul. As members of this House will know, there have been a number of honorary consuls in this Parliament over a considerable period of time. There was a Cabinet Minister who was apparently in such a post. I simply say—and it is a statement of the obvious, in the context of this title debate—that honorary consuls are not subjects or citizens of foreign States or powers. They do not take oaths of allegiance to the sending State, and they are not entitled to any of the rights of the subjects or citizens of that sending jurisdiction.

I was disappointed in the comments that the Attorney-General made before. We contemplate that the chief legal officer of the Government is the Solicitor-General. That is not strictly correct. The chief legal officer of the Government is the Attorney-General, the so-called parens patriae. So it has been interesting to hear Margaret Wilson’s comments that she has considered there is doubt as to whether a breach of the relevant legislation has occurred. She has taken that view in the face of contrary advice from a competent legal adviser—in this case, the Solicitor-General—contrary to the clear views of the Clerk of the House, and contrary to the views of a clear majority of the members of the Privileges Committee. If I had doubts about the competence of the Attorney-General to evaluate issues of legal concern, I would have to say that those doubts are mounting at an increasingly alarming rate.

In looking at the title of the bill, I have made the point that we should know whom the other persons are who are affected by the impact of the legislation. The title of the bill should spring from the issue that was the subject of the report to Parliament, which is headed Question of privilege relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 1993 to Hon Harry Duynhoven. Report of the Privileges Committee, Forty-seventh Parliament (Hon Matt Robson, Chairperson), August 2003. When one looks at the title of this bill, one sees that the second point that Mr Dunne made is also particularly compelling, because what has occurred is a clear mandate, a clear invitation, to seek dual citizenship.

I will take a very brief call, and in response to Mr Worth’s contribution simply say that, as we debate the title of this bill, I think it is worth getting on the record this concept. Someone who holds a passport or citizenship of a foreign power is not an official representative of, or an official advocate for, that foreign power. I ask the member who has just spoken to reflect on that, with regard to his position. I think there should be a higher standard for official representatives. He is an appointed diplomatic advocate who holds a warrant for a foreign power, and he is charged with representing and advocating for a foreign nation, as well as with being a member of this Parliament. On that point, I conclude.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. My speech is being misrepresented. I would be grateful if the member, who was present when I made the speech, accurately represented its content.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a debateable point.

No, it is not. With respect, it is a question of fact.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

The next amendments, two amendments in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble, are ruled out of order. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement).

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am intrigued to find that an amendment moved by Mr Jones to have the bill called the “Electoral (Harry Duynhoven Inadvertent Error) Amendment Bill is regarded as a valid amendment but that my first amendment, which was that the bill be called the “To Elect Harry Duynhoven Amendment Bill”—which is the effect of the bill—is somehow frivolous. My second amendment, which also describes an effect of the bill, “To allow the Prime Minister to have a foreign passport”, has also been found to be frivolous. How can it be that Mr Jones’ amendment is not frivolous but that my amendments—both of which describe results of the bill, and may be the real reason for it—are frivolous? How can that be? I do not follow. What is the difference?

Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement) states: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When I read the words “To Elect Harry Duynhoven” and when I consider that there has been a Privileges Committee report on the issue—not on all of us but on one particular individual—I cannot see how you can possibly rule that such an amendment is frivolous. The proper course for you is to put the issue to the vote, and the result will be the result. After all, that is why the issue was referred to the Privileges Committee, and this bill is a consequence of the Privileges Committee’s report.

I think that there may be a test that would help decide whether an amendment is frivolous, and it is this question: how will this be known colloquially; how will it be known in years to come when people are trying to distinguish this amendment from other amendments to the Act? I have no doubt that it will be known as the “Duynhoven amendment”. That is the way it will be identified, and therefore I fail to see how an amendment could be seen as frivolous if in fact the amendment is an attempt to call the bill what it will probably be popularly called for the rest of time.

The point is that the bill is about how the seat became vacant; not the election of the member.

This part—which has two clauses, one being “Commencement” and the other “Expiry”—is important because it shows the nonsense that this House is putting through today because of the Government’s desire to make sure that the law as it applies to everyone else does not apply to one of its own. That is the simple issue here.

The Government has started off by spending 15 minutes, of the 4 or so hours we have spent debating the bill, by justifying it, which is a pretty half-hearted justification. The justification has centred around the fact that the law was so archaic that it needed to be done away with, and that Mr Duynhoven broke an old, archaic law, so it does not really matter and we should just change it.

So where do we change it? We change it in this part, and we do not change it for ever but just for the course of this Parliament. Once the election has been held, that is fine. We will go back to the old, archaic law. Presumably, if another Labour MP breaks it, the Labour Party will try to change it again for the next Parliament. If the law is so bad, I ask Mr Barker why it is not being changed for good. Why not do that in this bill? Why just change it for this Parliament? Because that simply does not make sense if the law is as archaic and as bad as Mr Barker has said. The two principles do not add up, I say to the Minister. Mr Duynhoven will get his Dutch passport out of this.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: New passport.

A new passport, perhaps. Who knows? What happens in the next Parliament, presuming that he is an MP, if he reapplies? Will we have to come back to debate another bill? Will we be back here, changing the law for him again?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No we won’t; they won’t be in Government.

That is right. The Labour Party will not be in Government, because New Zealanders—and Labour members should listen to the radio at the moment—are outraged at this.

💬 Government Members: Ha, ha!

Government members laugh. Labour has the view, which is the height of arrogance, that Mr Duynhoven broke the law, but the Government will change the law for him and it will be OK, because Labour is the Government and it can do that. It is above all that nonsense of having to live by the same rules as everybody else. It is so tiresome, is it not, when one is caught out breaking the law? It was fine when there was an allegation that Mr Smith broke the law. The Government let him go and fight his one in the court. We had Labour Ministers saying that he should be held responsible for his actions. That is what Margaret Wilson said. Damien O’Connor said: “The law is the law and it should apply.” Then, about 2 weeks later, Mr Duynhoven broke the law. Where is “The law is the law and it should apply.” then? Oh, no, we have a different standard of citizenship for Mr Duynhoven. He is allowed to have Parliament spend 10 to 12 hours of its time changing the law to suit him.

💬 Dianne Yates: Can the member sit down?

The member for Hamilton East, who is sitting there knitting, asks me to sit down. I say to Dianne Yates that people in this country expect us to be here debating. They do not expect us to be sitting here knitting away and making decisions that change the way parliamentarians are elected. At the end of this day, Mr Duynhoven will not have been elected by the people of New Plymouth but by the knitter from Hamilton and her Labour colleagues. That is who will have elected him, not the people, because this report has found that he should have already gone.

New Zealand First has given a clear indication to the Committee that we will be moving an amendment to Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, with regard to the expiry date of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. By the Government’s decision, the Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. That could be today, 7 August, or it could be tomorrow, 8 August. We want to limit the damage created by this bill to the very shortest time possible. We will therefore move an amendment that the Act will expire, not—as the Government wishes—with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force, but on the day after the day on which it comes into force. If this bill comes into force on Friday 8 August, we want the law to expire on Saturday. That will protect Harry Duynhoven, which is the promise we made to him, but it will not protect anybody else from breaching the law in the future. However, the position of others who are in the same position as Harry Duynhoven, and who have not come forward and admitted their guilt in breaching the Electoral Act, will still be protected.

There are other amendments before the House that New Zealand First will be giving close consideration to. New Zealand First is prepared to cooperate with amendments that are reasonable. For example, if our amendment happens to be unsuccessful—and though I hate to broadcast that it might be unsuccessful, one has to face reality sometimes—we would have no hesitation in supporting United Future’s amendment, which is along the same lines. In fact, it provides specifically that the bill expires on 6 August 2003. It is important that all members of Parliament behave reasonably and ensure that there is some cooperation, so that, in one way or another, a majority of the House—and hopefully we can get the Greens along on this one, as well—can bring the “mischief” to an end, either on 8 August, as New Zealand First suggests, or on 6 August, as United Future suggests.

If the Greens are at all sincere in the speeches they have made in the House about identifying a “mischief” and remedying the evil that might have been created, I say to them that we know what the “mischief” is, and we can end it for sure by passing either the New Zealand First or the United Future amendment on the expiry date. That is the clear situation. If the Greens do not vote for either amendment, or any similar amendments—and I suspect that the United Future amendment might have the best chance of going ahead because of the way it has been presented—and still insist on not supporting an amendment to limit the damage to a date in August, we will know for certain that all the Greens are trying to do now is take over the role that United Future has had in this House—as we have said, of being the lapdogs of the Labour Party.

I am being as fair as I can to United Future, as I am sure Mr Dunne and Ms Turner will agree. The Greens will be lapdog 2 in this House, and United Future might be happy with that. The Greens will definitely become lapdog 2 in the way they will vote on this legislation, and in the way they have voted in recent times to support the Government at any cost whatsoever. The Greens are no longer a Green party. They are purely a survival party. That is all. Their interest in the environment has long gone. There are many members in this House, including members of New Zealand First, who have a greater regard for the environment than the Greens ever had, and, certainly, more concern than the Greens have today.

In the light of this legislation we are concerned that the present member, Harry Duynhoven, is flying the Dutch flag in his ministerial office, or so I understand.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Saw it on TV.

I believe it, but I find it very hard to believe. I ask where his allegiance is.

I rise to speak to what members have pointed out are very unusual commencement and expiry dates in Part 1. The bill basically comes into effect on its passing, and then we have this procedure; I have not seen a date like that given in a bill before. The legislation expires at “the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.” I have been trying to think why an expiry date of that sort would be picked, and I think I have an answer to Mr Jones’ amendment and to Mr Dunne’s. They both want the bill to expire, one on 6 August, and the other on a similar date after the bill is passed.

It is my view that that does not save Mr Duynhoven, because if the bill comes into effect, he will be an MP, and then when the bill expires, the whole effect of the bill will be removed. He has still committed the act; he is still out. I am still going to vote for it, because I think that that is what should happen to him, but I feel obliged as an MP to draw it to the attention of other MPs who have a more benign view towards Mr Duynhoven’s activities.

I have put forward two alternative dates, both of which I ask the Committee to support. Because I am totally opposed to this bill, the first says that instead of the bill coming into effect on the day it receives the royal assent, the commencement date should be 1 January 2006—which would not assist Mr Duynhoven. My second amendment says that the bill will expire on 1 January next year. I do that because the Government has said that it is referring this matter to the Justice and Electoral Committee. If the Government really thinks it is a problem, and then gives it urgency, we could have the whole matter resolved by 1 January, but the Government is saying in fact that it is a terrible anomaly, a dreadful thing, which it never knew had happened, and which should not be in the law—but, by the way, the bill is going to expire.

Why is that? If the Government really does think that it is perfectly OK for New Zealand members of Parliament to swear allegiance to foreign States, then why is it OK to do it in this Parliament but not in the next? If the Government really believes that this is a good measure, then why does the bill have an expiry clause in it, at all? If the Government is now saying that the Justice and Electoral Committee will consider this matter, why have we not given an instruction to that committee and put a reasonable close-off date on the bill? It is an interesting question.

The Holmes Show rang ACT—and I guess they will ring other parties—and commented that if the bill goes through as it is, it will not only help Mr Duynhoven but give approval for MPs to take out dual citizenship. I was asked how many MPs in our party could do that. That was a new question for me, so I had to go around and find out. Interestingly enough, four ACT members of Parliament could, if this bill went through, take out a foreign passport. They might have to go through a few processes, but they could do it. I ask the Committee whether we are really serious about that. That would be more than 30 MPs, overall.

💬 Ron Mark: It’s New Zealanders first.

I would have thought so. I am happy with that. Are we serious about passing a bill with this expiry date, which really says to every MP who could take out, say, an Irish passport—which is quite a common one that many people can qualify for—that they should do it, because after this election, if they think they will be re-elected, they will not be able to do it again? Some passports can be taken out for at least 10 years, and for 10 years Mr Clayton Cosgrove, if he qualifies, will be able to have an Irish passport, so he will not have to queue up when he goes to the EC, as New Zealanders have to queue up. Do we think that is desirable?

The ACT party does not, therefore we are putting up alternative closure dates. The first one I have put up—if we support it—would mean that this bill is a nullity. The second says let us have an expiry date that holds the Government to the statements being made here. If the Government really thinks that there are anomalies that ought to be fixed, then it ought to be able to do that by 1 January 2004. But, of course, what Government members are really doing is giving themselves—and the rest of us in Parliament without our asking for it—not just a licence but an encouragement to go and get a foreign passport.

I want to come back to the point that has been raised by earlier speakers in this debate about what the purpose of this bill is. It is a matter I raised during the title debate in the first reading last night. This bill arises out of the Privileges Committee’s report on the case of Harry Duynhoven, but the way the bill is crafted takes it far beyond the case of Harry Duynhoven.

Part 2, which we will deal with shortly, is the retrospective provision, which, in my view, is acceptable. But because of the absence of a clear expiry date other than the date of the next general election, Part 1 not only condones any future behaviour by members seeking to acquire foreign passports during the life of this Parliament, as I said earlier, it also goes further and encourages them to do so. It actually says that Harry Duynhoven’s position is being protected retrospectively because we are not certain of the circumstances that gave rise to his breach.

In any case, even if we do consider that he breached the law, we are now going to encourage others to do so with the full protection of the law. We do not just say that the way the bill is drafted protects people who might inadvertently stumble into the same situation in the future, by having a 2-year window between now and the date of the next election, we send to even the meanest intelligence in this place the clear signal that if members possibly think they have a chance of qualifying, they should get in there now, get their passports, and take their chances, because they will not get another one.

We think that is totally contrary to the intention of the bill. That is why I have moved an amendment to add a new clause, clause 3A, to Part 1 to indicate that this bill applies from the period of 14 August 2002 to 6 August 2003 only, so that it captures that retrospective aspect entirely and solely. It closes the door on the possibility of either of two things happening: the general invitation I spoke of a moment ago for everyone to go for broke because they now had a legal sanction to do so, and those who might be sitting in the Chamber in silence, knowing that either they had undertaken, or were about to undertake, an action that could put them in a similar situation, but had chosen not to reveal their identities.

To me, the most reprehensible aspect of this whole process is that I suspect that a number of people have been quite happy to see Harry Duynhoven take the rap, and quite happy to see that this is a case about him, knowing that there but for the grace of the proverbial, they might go also. So the amendment I have moved is designed to make it clear that the intent of this bill is honoured, and to prevent what I think would be the most absurd, cavalier, and insulting invitation to members of this Parliament to flout not so much the law with impunity, because it would be the law at that point, but the intent of the law. That would be the case if the bill went ahead in a way that said that members now had a 2-year opportunity to do no wrong in respect of foreign citizenships, nationalities, renewals of passports, or the like.

That is not what this issue is about, but if these provisions stand, that is what it will become about. That is why we have made it clear that if those provisions are not amended, we will not be supporting the bill further.

I want to respond to a couple of points. Firstly, to pick up the point raised, and to amplify the point touched on by Mr Prebble, I want to say that it is my intention to write to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and to give it time to consider this issue. I do not think it is as simple and straightforward as Mr Prebble indicated. If we were to set an expiry date in the very near future, it might not give the committee sufficient time to consider the issue.

There are also contradictions in respect of the position put forward by Mr Dunne. If somebody stands at the election who holds a passport other than a New Zealand passport, and no one in the electorate knows about it, then that is perfectly acceptable. If someone picks up a passport he or she is entitled to after the election, that somehow is not. That seems to me to be a paradox.

If Mr Prebble’s point is that no one should hold a passport to another country, or hold alternative citizenship—which is the point he is making—then the law does not reflect that. If that is the view Mr Prebble has, and if the majority of this Parliament agrees with it prior to the next election, then those will be the rules, and they will be well understood. But it is an issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee should have an appropriate amount of time to go through and think seriously about.

As for the dates in this bill, they are simply to say that this legislation will come into effect when the Governor-General decides, and will expire at the time the polls close on election day. I am very confident that the Justice and Electoral Committee will have had a report to the House by that stage, and that we will have considered the legislation and determined a completely fresh set of rules.

The last two speeches, from Peter Dunne, a supporter of the Government, and the Minister Rick Barker, show just how tatty this whole process is, and how disgraceful and despicable it is that the process of this House has been drawn into something that should never have happened.

In discussing Part 1, I call the Committee’s attention to New Zealand Parliamentary Practice, written by David McGee. A number of people have said in the course of this debate that David McGee is recognised as the best Clerk in the Commonwealth. He says that the House and its members are subject to the law of the land as promulgated by Parliament, in the same way as everyone else in the State, and that they must comply with any statute that applies to the House’s proceedings, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House to the contrary. Well, we are seeing a practice of the House that is contrary to all the things about our parliamentary democracy that are good.

Peter Dunne stood up and said this bill flows from the report of the Privileges Committee, but that cannot possibly be true, because the report of the Privileges Committee has not been dealt with by the House. So what are we expected to believe: that the Privileges Committee’s report, which was tabled at 1 o’clock yesterday, was raced off in some haste to the drafting office, which, without reference to anything Parliament might have said, produced this bill and had it ready for its introduction at about 8 o’clock last night? It never happened.

This bill is all about a Government scrambling to protect one of its own. The Government is scared witless at the possibility of a by-election—no matter what it says about Mr Duynhoven’s huge majority. As has been pointed out by other members, by-elections throw up strange results. This just happens to be a seat surrounded by seabed and foreshore—by foreshore, in particular. New Zealanders think they can walk freely over foreshore, but the current Government is about to excise that freedom.

This bill has a reasonably generous provision in it that, from the commencement date of this bill till its expiry, will allow members of the New Zealand Parliament to consider their options and, possibly, take up dual citizenship and get a passport for another country, and to do so quite lawfully. It has absolutely nothing to do with a desire to protect Harry Duynhoven alone. It is all about Labour having a number of members in its caucus who are being a bit sneaky about this, and are not telling us everything they might about their circumstances; Labour wants to protect them, and it also wants to cover Harry Duynhoven because it wants to avoid a by-election. So the idea is to make the bill much bigger than just Harry Duynhoven; to open it up and tell the whole of Parliament that here is an opportunity for members to turn their backs on the privilege of being elected to this House, of standing in this House and speaking, and swear an oath of allegiance to another country.

I see the Chair suggesting that I narrow the content of my speech. Perhaps the Minister in the chair will tell me if I am wrong. If the intention behind this bill is not as I expressed it, perhaps the Minister will say why the commencement and expiry dates are so far apart. Why could there not be some compromise? Why would the Government not make it a “Save Harry Duynhoven’s Seat Bill”, rather than the huge electoral vacancies bill that it has turned out to be, which lets every MP have a go at getting dual citizenship?

Another point of interest will be some of the provisions that are suspended during that period of time. Although we should not stray into those now, I tell members that that will be a very long debate, because I think the Government has made a quite significant number of mistakes here.

This is a sad, sad little exercise on the part of the New Zealand Parliament. If this bill were truly a bill to cover the situation Mr Duynhoven finds himself in, the period covered by the dates would be much narrower.

The point that has been made about every single member of Parliament applying for citizenship of another country is why this bill is so wrong. Why on earth would the Government put legislation into this House that enables every member of Parliament to apply for citizenship of another country, if he or she is entitled to do so, in the next 2 years? What on earth could be the public policy reason behind that?

It is actually even worse than that. If the Government is hiding someone, that person probably was involved in that action between the last election and now, so why does the bill not have a closure date of tomorrow, as Mr Dail Jones has suggested? Even that would be too wide because it would still protect that secret person whom we know is out there who is not willing to confess.

The Government is going even further than that. For some absurd reason, Labour wants all members of Parliament, irrespective of their parties, to be able to go out there and get any passport they want, if they are entitled to do so. What could be the public policy reason for that? It is even worse than that, because if one looks at the suspension of section 55(1)(b), one sees that it also enables every single member of Parliament to take an oath of allegiance to another country. Many passport applications do not require that, but this Government is going further. So we would have the extraordinary spectacle over the next 2 years of members of Parliament—who are purportedly representing the interests of the people of this country, having sworn allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand when they took office as members of Parliament—taking oaths of allegiance to other countries. That is the effect of suspending section 55(1)(b). It is truly extraordinary. What on earth is the public policy reason behind doing that?

The previous Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, who is a man who is not learned in the law, demonstrated that by saying that we have to suspend the section for that period to protect Harry Duynhoven; that if we do not do that, we save him now but he would not be saved thereafter. That is a complete misapprehension. We would not agree with this legislation in any event, but if it related only to Harry Duynhoven, for instance, he would be covered for the balance of this Parliament—that would be the effect of the legislation. To have these provisions go forward to the end of this Parliament is to cover people prospectively, in the future, for future applications. There can be no logic in that, at all.

The Government will say that the existing legislation is old-fashioned and quaint, that it is a kind of weird notion that members of Parliament should solely have allegiance to our country and to the people of our country, and that that ought to be subject to review. Perhaps the Government does believe that. It could put that provision to the Justice and Electoral Committee, as, indeed, it intends to do, but none of that has anything at all to do with Mr Harry Duynhoven. If there were any case at all for this legislation, which there is not, then it should be tightly circumscribed, and the Government—if it has any integrity in its understanding of oaths of allegiance and the taking out of passports—should, at the very minimum, be voting for Mr Dail Jones’ amendments.

I turn now to our fundamental objection. The people of New Zealand decide who is in this Parliament. They do that by voting at elections, and when there is a vacancy, the proper course is to have a by-election. That is what happens in other Parliaments. Parliamentarians in other Parliaments do not rush around spending 1 percent of all parliamentary time on special legislation to save the bacon of not only someone like Harry Duynhoven but some unknown person or persons. What happened to Ms Chal of the United Future party? She came in, disappeared, and another person came in. That is what the law is supposed to be.

I am delighted to take part in this debate. Notwithstanding what this bill does, which includes, not least of all, questioning the integrity of members of Parliament, it will be responsible for electing—or should that be “selecting”—the next member of Parliament for New Plymouth.

I refer to the issue of the commencement date: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” That date is unknown. I wonder whether, unlike a whole lot of other legislation that this Government has recently introduced, the uncertainty in terms of the date is related to the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have no compunction in mentioning the Treaty of Waitangi, because that was the first visa to be issued for this country, and it allowed many of us to be here in this House today.

I refer to immigration and the question of allegiance to our country. What is the symbol we all face when we give allegiance to anything, particularly to our country? It is the flag. If that is the case, then why does the subject of this bill—and we say that his allegiance is not in question—have a Dutch flag in his office, which I suggest, if I can go even further, was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: As a Minister?

As a Minister. I have to ask myself where the allegiance of that member lies.

The other issue is that Māori members on the Government side of the Chamber have been very silent in this debate. A number of them have talked about the importance of tino rangatiratanga. Does that mean that the time it takes before the royal assent is given to this bill will allow them to question the issue of tino rangatiratanga and where they stand in this debate? Do they agree that, as a consequence of this bill, one of their fellow members will have his position as an MP legally restored—someone who has shown allegiance to another power? Those Māori members, who support the notion of tino rangatiratanga, are quite happy to see that responsibility given to someone who has already shown his allegiance to another country. If that is tino rangatiratanga, I would like them to go out on to the marae of this country and explain to the very people whom those members represent how that is tino rangatiratanga.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There are too many people walking around the Chamber. Under Standing Order 82 members must be seated.

If it is OK for members of this House to break the law, then why do the same rules not apply to many of my relations who break the law? Is it because they are Māori? I have to ask myself that. How will I be able to go out of this Chamber today and explain that to my relatives in the far north who try to lead a lawful life? Do I have to say: “No, we’re all waiting for the royal assent. When the royal assent is give—I am sorry Joe Public, Joe Marae, Hohepa Public—one can’t break the law.”? That is not to say that I promote the idea that our people should go out and break the law, but this is all about tino rangatiratanga.

I rise to speak to this debate on the Electoral (Vacancies)—plural—Amendment Bill, in particular with reference to Part 1. This is cunningly contrived legislation, on any view of it. Whatever my personal views on this legislation—and I hope it fails—I can nevertheless admire the skill of the parliamentary counsel who, by obfuscation and deception, has produced an outcome that I am sure none of us truly intended.

I am glad that we have seated in the rear of the Chamber senior parliamentary counsel, because I would like the Minister in the chair, Mark Burton, to take a call on what is a remarkable aspect of Part 1, and I am not talking about clause 3; I am talking about clause 2. It seems at first blush to be innocuous. It states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” So I went out to the Noes lobby, picked up New Zealand Statutes 2002, Volume 3, and idly glanced through the first six statutes in that volume. Five of the six state, in terms of their commencement, not: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.”, but instead: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I ask the Minister why that is. What is the need for that significant change from clear parliamentary practice when there is retrospective legislation in this bill?

I looked at the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act, at the Animal Welfare Amendment Act, and at another one that was different—it came into force on a set date. The next three I looked at were the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Amendment Act, and the Bail Amendment Act. Then I stopped looking. But why is clause 2, the commencement provision, drafted in this most unusual way? We are lucky to have a Minister in the chair whom I do not doubt may well grace the office of Speaker in the term of this present Parliament. This is a great opportunity for him to stand and indicate why it has been seen as necessary, with retroactive legislation—retrospective in character—to depart from standard parliamentary practice in connection with the drafting of clause 2.

Part 1 is a short part. It contains only two clauses. The second clause, clause 3, states: “This Act expires with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.” So, what clearly is intended is that the expiry date is to be referable to the expiry of a parliamentary term. That leads me to urge this Committee to think carefully about what it is doing if it decides to lend support to this legislation, because it is effectively usurping the role that the public have to determine the entitlement of members to sit in this House, and, from a voter’s perspective, the entitlement of an individual voter to cast his or her vote.

I was impressed by the comments the Hon Richard Prebble made that if this bill is intended to be limited to Mr Duynhoven, his very substantial majority of something just under 15,000 votes is to be shredded. He is now going to continue in office as an MP with the minimal margin that is the result of the voting process later in the day—a margin that may be as low as just three or four votes. So here he is, a man who has had in the past a substantial mandate to represent the people of New Plymouth, now reduced to holding on in office with the narrowest of majorities.

I move, That the question be now put.

I was most impressed with the speaker from New Zealand First who has just resumed his seat, Pita Paraone. He raised some interesting new matters in this debate. He gave the Committee the information that we have a Minister of the Crown, Mr Harry Duynhoven, with a Dutch flag flying in his office. He put that in a different context, by asking what the symbol is that we swear allegiance to. It is the flag, yet here we have a Minister of the Crown, carrying a ministerial warrant granted by the Prime Minister, who has a Dutch flag flying in his office. Now what message does that give to people, when they come to see him? It is like a ship sailing under two flags.

💬 Ron Mark: A flag of convenience.

A flag of convenience, perhaps?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Two-flags Harry.

“Two-flags Harry”—that could be his new nickname. The point has been made that the suggested amendment to bring the expiry date of this legislation forward would not work. I agree with that analysis, given the reason that we have got into this mess. A member of our Parliament, Harry Duynhoven, clearly breached section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. The rules are quite clear; that does create a vacancy. The advice to us from the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House was that that was clear. The Speaker chose to ignore that advice. There is provision that if the Speaker is uncertain as to whether there is a vacancy, he can consult with the House. But he should not have been uncertain on this occasion, because the advice he received, as I have said, was very clear. But setting that aside, it was convenient for the Speaker to take the course of action he did, which gave the Government time to scramble together this disgraceful legislation. But the point has been made that bringing the expiry date forward will not work, because the breach has been made. If we do not have the expiry date that is stated in the bill—after the next election—and bring it forward to next month, next week, the end of this year, or whatever date may be decided, Mr Duynhoven will still be out because he has made that breach.

There is only one way that Labour members can save Harry Duynhoven, if that is what they want to do—and the ACT party says it is wrong in principle for this Parliament to play around with the Act for the convenience of Parliament, or, in other words, to change the law on a self-serving principle. The only way to save Harry Duynhoven is to redraft the provision on the basis of a clean-slate principle. In other words, the law must state that anyone who has transgressed section 55(1)(c) of the Act to date has immunity. There would be a clean slate, and from X day henceforth—whether that is next week, next month, or at the end of the year—anyone who transgresses section 55(1)(c) then, knowingly and consciously, would breach that section, but all misdemeanours up to this point would be exempt. Now that would be equally wrong in principle, but at least it would address the issue. So I offer that to the Committee, should members want to persist with some of the amendments that had been suggested. Members really need to change them to a clean slate - type principle, rather than just bringing the date forward, because that would still trip members up.

The other interesting point raised by Pita Paraone was in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. He made some very interesting points about that. Moreover, there are elements in our society that challenge sovereignty, and this issue is all about the sovereignty of New Zealand. We know some radicals within Māoridom say they want to have dual sovereignty. Georgina te Heuheu gave a very good speech about upholding the law, and I totally concur with her. But other flags have been suggested, and there have been suggestions of indigenous groups of people issuing passports. Where do we go to from there? Many people passionately believe they have the right to issue an indigenous person’s passport in this country. If Parliament is to play around with a clear provision in the Act like section 55(1)(c)—

💬 Stephen Franks: And the flag doesn’t matter.

As my colleague Stephen Franks says, the flag does not matter. Ministers of the Crown used to be issued with New Zealand flags as a symbol, and most responsible Ministers were very proud to have the flag on a stand in a corner of their office, as a symbol of the warrant that they hold. The flag is a symbol of our nationhood. That is the point that was made; that is what it is all about. We have learnt in the debate on this part that the member who transgressed the Act flies a Dutch flag.

I move, That the question be now put.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I cannot help but reflect, in relation to the last speaker’s address, that there are people out there who are dishing out indigenous passports at the moment. In the land of the Tūhoe, people are actually dishing out dog licences on the basis that they have not seen the local council in a blue moon, so why should they pay licence fees in the Whakatane District?

Having been defeated on the title of the bill, New Zealand First now intends to serve a writ of habeas corpus on the Labour Party. We want Labour to show us the body. We know it is not Harry Duynhoven. We want Labour to show us the people who will be protected by this legislation, if it will not support our amendment that states that the only person to be protected in reality will be Harry Duynhoven, and no one else.

💬 Dail Jones: More than one body?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If there is more than one body, what is it? Is it “habeas corpi”?

The Government cannot get away with this. It has been asked now for over 48 hours about the people whom it is seeking to protect with this legislation, and it will not mutter a sound, a syllable, a murmur, nor a word.

💬 Dail Jones: Does it know?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government must know. It must know that other members are being protected, but such is its obsession with power that it has appeared to abandon any principle, just to maintain power—even the simple principle of public disclosure of the group of people who are to be protected by this legislation.

The Government has no reason to come to Parliament with a plan to protect its colleague Harry Duynhoven, and then to abuse him and the rest of us by covertly not telling us who else comes within the ambit of this legislation. More important than that, I ask what sort of legislation suspends the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Act for the full term of Parliament? The day after this legislation receives the royal assent, every parliamentarian with a right of dual citizenship can go overseas and apply again to become an American citizen, an English or Britain citizen, or a citizen of some other country—

💬 Ron Mark: Nigerian.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They could become Nigerians, Tongans, or Samoans.

This bill is so typical of this Government. Under Labour, we are a nation of hyphenated New Zealanders. We are no longer one people—New Zealanders first, second, and third. No, we are Samoan New Zealanders, Dutch New Zealanders, and Māori New Zealanders—anything but one people.

💬 Jill Pettis: What about Italian?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I do not know of anybody here who is of Italian extraction, but I do know that every time that some people here open their mouths, they remind me of an Italian fish market. It is not just the sounds, but the visual appearances, as well, that remind me of a fish market.

💬 Dail Jones: Sophia Loren?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know that Sophia Loren would be turning in her grave, but let us not mind that.

The truth is that a country that is divided cannot stand. A House that is divided cannot stand, and nor can a country. A country with no sense of social cohesion will not be successful. No country, since the Great War, has entered and stayed in the First World that did not have a highly developed sense of social and economic cohesion. However, here in this Parliament today Labour is passing a law that, the day after it receives the royal assent, will enable members of Parliament to sign up for any country they feel like signing up for, with impunity. Mr Robson will be able to rejoin his Australian cousins again. The two members from Samoa will be able to rejoin the Samoan nation again. The paradox, of course, is that those people will all say they are New Zealanders again. It really is ridiculous.

I ask the Labour Party to please come clean. Who are the secret members it has who have knowingly done far, far more serious things than Harry Duynhoven? Why is the Labour Party protecting them? Will Helen Clark’s CV look far better, when she is tipped out after the next election, if she goes for a UN job as the holder of dual passports? Helen Clark has actually run this country on the basis of an advanced plan that one day she will be in a UN job. She has sold the country down the drain, so that one day she will get a UN job. Is she one member who has made an application for a dual passport?

💬 Simon Power: She wants a diplomatic passport.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. Helen Clark’s country has become too small for her. Frankly, the people will tell her all about that whenever she flies the white flag before the next election.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to raise two matters. The first is that clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” The honourable member who has just resumed his seat, Winston Peters, said it was the day after that. In fact, the wording is, “… on the day on which it receives …”. I want to explore that just a little bit. It is most unusual to have those words; it is normally the day after that. I can only assume the reason that the Government is doing this is that if this bill becomes the law on the day after it receives the royal assent, then it very likely that by the time it does, the Parliament may well have debated the Privileges Committee’s report, and, as a consequence, the Speaker will have had to make a decision to declare a vacancy. So the Government has stated the legislation will come into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. That puts it ahead of the timing for this Parliament to be able to debate the Privileges Committee’s report.

Here again, the Government is manipulating the parliamentary system. I do not recall—other members here may recall this—ever seeing a bill go through the House that stated it came into force on the day on which it received the royal assent. Certainly, in this particular case, whether or not there has been a precedent, the Government should take extra care with regard to that sort of thing. However, when I think about it, why would the Government bother to take care? Why should the Government not have another go at abusing the system, when it is abusing the system anyway by passing this bill? So when we think about it—

💬 Ron Mark: It’s a communist state!

Absolutely! Why would the Government bother to worry about whether it will set a precedent? It just wants to get on and do it, without worrying about the people or about democracy. It does not matter a toss to this Government that we are doing things that normal Parliaments around the world do not do.

What happened in Australia, when events like this arose? The people vacated the seat and resigned. That is what happened in Australia, and it should happen here. They are honourable people over there, and not like the Labour Government here in New Zealand. This is a black, sad day for Parliament. This bill really is a disgrace.

The second thing I want to talk about is that it is becoming more and more evident that this bill is just a big cover-up for at least one other Labour member of Parliament, possibly the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who has made a mistake.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Tim Barnett!

No, I do not think it is Tim Barnett. I think it is the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. This point fits right in with clause 3. I believe that the Government has put this bill through with a provision that it will expire at the end of this term in order to cover up for somebody. I believe that person is Helen Clark.

💬 Simon Power: Ask someone!

I will ask whether it is Tim Barnett in a minute, but I do not think it is. I believe it is Helen Clark, because of what happened around “paintergate”. Helen Clark was quite happy to abuse the system, and to avoid being had up for fraud and all those sorts of things, so this issue will not make any difference to her, at all. Here we have Parliament ripping something else up, in order to cover up for the Prime Minister. That is just absolutely disgraceful.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Get on the phone!

I challenge the senior Government whip to stand up and deny that. I bet he cannot. Clause 3 will allow that to happen.

I bet the senior Government whip cannot stand up in this Committee, speak on behalf of the Prime Minister, and say that the other member who will benefit from this legislation is not the Prime Minister. I challenge him to do that; I bet that he cannot. He has had plenty of opportunities. The senior Government whip could take the next call, and say that the member for Northland is wrong and the Prime Minister is all OK. I bet he does not do that. Does any member want to take the bet up? Of course the senior Government whip will not take the challenge up. I ask the member Tim Barnett whether he is prepared to stand up in this Committee and say that the other member who will benefit from this legislation is not him. I wonder whether he will do that. I bet he will not.

The problem is that this bill now casts suspicion on all the members of the Labour Party, and, indeed, it casts suspicion on a whole number of people.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I have tabled an amendment and I seek leave that it be put before the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment, as the dates are different and it would be appropriate that my amendment be put first.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit the words “the day on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “1st day of January 2006”.