Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It has been a convention that, when a bill has not been to a select committee, the debate in the Committee stage is wide ranging and more time is given. In respect of Part 1 you gave the standard amount of time we have become accustomed to for a part by part debate on a bill that has been to a select committee. We are about to debate Part 2 and I am wondering whether we will be tied into those sorts of timings or whether you will follow the tradition—certainly in my time in Parliament—of allowing extra time, because the bill has not been to a select committee. That has been the convention, for the very reason that members have not had a chance to scrutinise the bill in a select committee.

It is fair to say that it has been a convention that extended time is given for the debate on the title of a bill that has not been to a select committee, and certainly that has been the case with this bill. As to the rest, it is a matter that has always been, and should quite properly be, the province of the Chair, because many factors come into play—the importance of the issue, the size of the part, and, most important, the relevance of the debate.

I fully concur with the comments made by Mr Sowry. I was somewhat surprised when the debate on Part 1 was closed down. I am not relitigating that matter, but I did observe that the co-leader of the Greens, Mr Rod Donald, had been anxiously seeking a call. I was equally surprised when he voted for the closure motion, having sought a call, but be that as it may.

My concern is that we spent a very short period on Part 1. This bill amends the Electoral Act, but the bill has not been to a select committee. We are sitting under urgency, and I just point out that we spent more time on the title than we did on Part 1; and by no means did we spend too much time on the title. Some very interesting facts were given and points made by members, but the debate on Part 1 was truncated compared with the time we spent on the title. I support Mr Sowry’s point of order and urge you to give the Committee sufficient time to debate fully these very important provisions, which are causing so much concern.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank all members who made a contribution. It is the custom for the title to be a long, wide-ranging debate, and that was permitted. It is not necessarily that way when it comes to debates on the parts. I have taken on board what members have said, and I will attempt to give everyone a fair go at taking part in the debate.

I thought the Minister might well wish to start off the debate on this part, but that is probably asking too much. Part 2 is as reprehensible as Part 1. It is the retrospective part of the bill. In clause 5 this bill is deemed to have come into force on 14 August 2002—just on a year ago. That is when this Parliament commenced. So any member of Parliament who has broken the law with regard to foreign citizenship, or sought to have a foreign passport or dual citizenship whilst being a member of Parliament, is now deemed to be covered by this retrospective clause. We know that Mr Duynhoven has done that. We have no understanding why the Government has decided to go back to 14 August, because we know that Mr Duynhoven told the Privileges Committee that he sought to have his Dutch citizenship come into force this year. So there is no reason to go back. He sought to do it this year.

One would have thought we could have gone back as far as the dates Mr Duynhoven gave the Privileges Committee, and that would have covered him. So why did the Minister decide to go all the way back to 14 August? Could it be that the Minister decided to go back to 14 August because of another MP? Could that be the case? Can the Minister assure us that no other MP broke this law prior to the date Mr Duynhoven gave—I think July this year? Can he assure us that that is not the case? The Minister sits silent. It is interesting, because members of the Committee might want to know that members of the press gallery have talked to all political parties about this issue today. Every party has given an assurance bar the Labour Party. The Labour Party is saying—

💬 David Benson-Pope: What about the ACT party?

Mr Benson-Pope should just keep his hair on. The Labour Party is saying to the media: “No comment”. Dr Cullen’s official comment to the media at the moment is: We won’t comment on it—end of story.” So we ask the Minister why he insists that this bill go back nearly a year earlier than the date Mr Duynhoven sought to have his Dutch citizenship ratified. Why did he do that? Does the Minister have any reasons for that? Will he take a call and explain to the Committee?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I will.

That is good. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he, personally, has no knowledge of any member of Parliament who has also been caught up in this issue? Can he assure the Committee of that?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I will take a call.

Can the Minister assure the Committee that he has no knowledge of any other member being caught up in this?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I will take a call.

The Minister said he will take a call, and I hope he does. I want to flag with you, Mr Chairperson, my intention to take another call following the Minister, or later on in the debate, to make sure he does answer those questions. All I want from the Minister is answers to two questions. First, why did the Minister choose to go back to when Parliament was sworn in? Secondly, does he have any knowledge of any other MP who has been caught up in this issue, and is that why he has gone back so far? If the Minister does not have any knowledge of any other MP being caught up in this issue, and we are to believe all other parties in the Committee—except for Labour—that says it is not them, then we want to know why he has gone back as far as that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable Minister Jim Sutton. [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You may not have seen the Minister in the chair seeking the call. The Minister indicated several times during my speech that he would take the call. He was moving, and I just wonder whether you missed that. Ministers usually get the call, even if one of their own colleagues seeks it. The Minister certainly moved. It was slow, but he did move.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If he did move, I am sorry but I did not see him.

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture): Members opposite raised the question of why we are doing what we are doing. I would say that, from my point of view, we are here to save “Private Harry”. Harry Duynhoven is an outstanding parliamentarian who, as we all know, is very proud of his Dutch heritage and his New Zealand citizenship. His parliamentary majority is bigger than the total personal votes of almost every member opposite. As such, he is the object of much spiteful envy and petty jealousy from members opposite—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/5—a running commentary of interjection is not permitted. If members want to make a speech they can seek the call next time.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you give us a little guidance. This is a House of debate, and it is quite complimentary if someone’s debate is robust enough to invite reaction. That is part and parcel of debate in the House. The Minister is engaging in a robust debate and making very controversial statements. I ask you to consider that such controversial statements invite, as a matter of course, robust interjection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on that, and the ruling stands.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave the Minister some advice about the constraints that come on any speaker in the Committee stage of a bill. Making reference to Mr Duynhoven’s significant majority, which no one disagrees with, is totally irrelevant to this debate, unless members are simply saying that, because he was so well elected last time, we should not bother to have an election in New Plymouth again while he is around.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Point of orders should be short. The Minister was coming to the point.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have just advised the Committee that interjections should be fewer, and that is fine. That is a ruling we would expect from the Chair, but I ask that it be consistently applied. There have been occasions, certainly when I have been on my feet, when members have continually interjected but have not been called to order. I do not mind interjections myself. They do not worry me. In fact, I am very happy about it. But if we are to have that ruling, let us have some consistency.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 64/3(1) and say that we take note of what happens in the Chamber, and each case is judged on its merits.

💬 Hon JIM SUTTON: I am addressing the issue raised by members opposite of why we are here debating this matter. I would say this. In a small-minded, malicious way members opposite have seized upon the absurd technicality of a long-obsolete remnant of ancient legislation to try to force Harry out. That is what they are doing. In so doing, in their ridiculous pomposity, they are revealing their contempt and complete disregard for the very clear preference of the good people of New Plymouth. They have chosen Harry by a bigger margin than any other sitting member of Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister cannot use a person’s first name. That is the third time he has done it. Could he please refer to the member by his full name.

💬 Hon JIM SUTTON: The people of New Plymouth have chosen the Hon Harry Duynhoven as their representative in Parliament by a greater margin than any other sitting member of Parliament. The National Party—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, it is not befitting the Government to send down to the Chamber a Minister who knows nothing about Part 2 of this legislation. He has not referred to it in any specific sense but has tried to commence a general argument. That may be appropriate at the introduction, the report back, or the debate on the title, but it is not appropriate now. Which part of Part 2, or any part of Part 2, is the Minister focusing his mind on? This is the widest debate of this subject that I have heard today. To send down a tired old Minister and have him slash around the Chamber and beat his gums, is not good enough.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I would like the Minister to come to the point.

💬 Hon JIM SUTTON: I am specifically addressing clauses 4, 5, and 6 of Part 2 to explain why we are here debating this issue. We are involved in this prolonged debate because the National Party, ACT, and New Zealand First—the self-satisfied, self-important Tories—who could not defeat the democratic will of the good people of New Plymouth by fair means, are trying now to do it by foul means. That is what this debate is all about. It is time we closed it down and got on with the real business of Parliament.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have asked the Minister to focus on the legislation. Just reciting the clauses that he thinks he is referring to is not good enough. He has immediately gone back to expressing his bile and venom about the next Government of this country, knowing full well that he does not understand the subject he is addressing right now. If he cannot address the subject, then stop his speech and we will get back to the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I might add that that applies to all members.

💬 Hon JIM SUTTON: I have made the point I wanted to make. I suggest we close down this time-wasting debate and get back to the real business of Parliament—something we were sent here by the electors to get on with.

One of the matters mentioned by Dr Cullen at the very beginning of this debate was in reference to clause 6. When he was told that it is possible for a New Zealand citizen to lose his or her New Zealand citizenship, a sudden light dawned on him that we should therefore have a provision, in terms of section 55(1) of the principal Act, which he proposed should read: “the seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant if he or she, being a person who is a New Zealand citizen, ceases to be a New Zealand citizen.” The reason we have not had this provision in the past is that a person born in New Zealand never ceases to be a New Zealand citizen. That is just the way it is. Such a provision is not needed. If one is born in New Zealand it is not possible to cease to be a New Zealand citizen.

The classic examples were in the Second World War. The first involved Japanese Americans who were born in the United States but felt they were more Japanese than American. So they went over to Japan and fought for their beloved country, Japan, in the Second World War, as pilots and soldiers. After the war they were not treated as prisoners of war but as traitors. Although they went back to their homeland and fought for the country they sincerely believed in, for their flag, the Americans took the view that, at law, they were always citizens of the country they were born in. No matter what they did with their lives they were always citizens of that country, and, if they fought against the country in which they were born, they were traitors and could be executed. And they were shot—they might have been hanged, but they were killed, executed, by the Americans. So this provision is not worth the paper it is written on, and that is why it has never been in legislation before. The Government, in bringing in legislation with this provision in it, has highlighted the whole fallacy—the whole falseness—of it. It is useless legislation. It is legislation totally without thought. It has not been given full consideration. The provision is absolutely meaningless.

The other example was Lord Haw-Haw, Joyce v DPP —the House of Lords in one of the most appropriate, but worst, decisions it ever made, if one looks at it as a lawyer. Lord Haw-Haw was a Northern Irishman who had a passport—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Applied for a passport.

He applied for a passport. Then he was in England. His passport, or whatever it was, lapsed. He went over to Germany and became known as the infamous Lord Haw-Haw. He was never really a citizen, but Britain—and I agree entirely with what it did to Lord Haw-Haw—decided he remained a British citizen, and he was executed. Even if one is not warned, losing one’s citizenship is an almost impossible thing to do, whether or not we like it.

This provision, which appealed to Dr Cullen and some members of the Labour Party during the select committee, is utterly useless. At the very least what it shows is that it should not have been in this bill. If there is ever to be any consideration of this matter, that is when this provision should be considered. It highlights what a waste of time this Labour Party has been exercising us all in. We should have had a very simple bill supporting Harry Duynhoven, which New Zealand First wanted to do at the beginning. Our offer was rejected. The Government has tried to protect everybody under this legislation in terms of section 55(1)(b), referred to in clause 4. We will not support anyone who has taken an oath of allegiance to a foreign country and give him or her the right to be a member of Parliament after the last election. That is what section 55(1)(b), referred to in clause 4, is doing. We ask the Labour Party: who is the person who has taken an oath of allegiance? He has done more than Harry Duynhoven—

Opposition member: She.

—she has done more than Harry Duynhoven. Was it my friend Dr Ashraf Choudhary, the list member who was born in the Punjab in Pakistan? Did he unknowingly, innocently, or somehow or another renew his Pakistani passport? As a list MP he would have been gone, like Ms Chal, without there being any thought of a by-election or whatever. He should stand up and let us know. I look at Tim Barnett. What about him? It may be other members in this House, but I will not go through the entire list. However, section 55(1)(b) does not apply to Harry Duynhoven, yet we are being asked to give effect to a matter about which we have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. We are being asked as an Opposition blindly to support someone in this situation—and, of course, we are being asked to support someone who might become an Iraqi after this bill is passed.

We are coming to the operative clause of the bill, clause 4, which states that section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act—that is the Electoral Act—do not apply to any member of Parliament. That is a remarkable clause, when one thinks about it. It just says that those parts of that section of the Act do not apply. What is that section? It is the section that says a member of Parliament cannot swear allegiance to a foreign State. I have a series of amendments. I will quickly go through them because I think the Committee ought to study them.

The first one is to replace “any member of Parliament” with just “Hon Harry Duynhoven”. Then we would be doing exactly what New Zealand First wants, because the bill would apply only to that member. I think the Greens ought to look at that.

I really do ask the Committee to support the next one. The ACT members of Parliament do not want to have this exemption; we want to remain bound by the law to give allegiance only to New Zealand. So we have asked that every ACT MP be exempted from this bill. I am asking Parliament not to apply it to us.

Then I have amendments listing a number of MPs who, it is rumoured, are the MPs concerned who are affected by this law. Why have I chosen those MPs? Because they are the ones about whom rumours are going around. There might be others. I want those MPs to know, because they have an interesting question: if it is not them, then they should make sure they do not vote for this clause. I have started off with the Rt Hon Helen Clark, then Tim Barnett, Dr Ashraf Choudhary, Michael Cullen, Taito Phillip Field, Hon Mark Gosche, Winnie Laban, and the Hon Jim Sutton. Then, as the Greens seem to be quite extraordinary in their support for this bill, I have Sue Bradford and Nandor Tanczos. There may be others. I invite other MPs to put them up.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Keith Locke?

No, I think Keith Locke is actually a New Zealand - bred Kampuchean supporter. Let me make this point. I have been listening to people who are not on the Privileges Committee saying that the National Party and the ACT party turned down the Privileges Committee doing a survey. Not so! Those members should go and look at the minutes of the committee. They will not see any proposal to do a survey. It was discussed, and we realised that, as a select committee, we did not have the power to do it. My party and others said that we would do it through the whips, and we came back to the committee. I gave such an undertaking, having taken this issue so seriously that I had gone back to every member of our party—although I did not contact Donna Awatere Huata, because I know where she comes from; I wish this bill did catch her, but it does not. The National Party came back and made its statement. Mr Peters said at first he had not done it, but when he came back to the next meeting he had. Every single party, except the Labour Party, gave an undertaking to the Privileges Committee, many of which have been repeated here under privilege. The only party at the Privileges Committee that would not state that it did not have members of Parliament who have sworn allegiance to foreign powers was the Government—the Labour Party.

I find that quite extraordinary. It is unprecedented—frightening—that we have a Government putting through a change in the law, and it is not prepared to be upfront with this Parliament. Government members are so arrogant that they do not think they have to answer, and they are, apparently, telling the media and the public of New Zealand “No comment.” That is not good enough. I want to see whether Helen Clark is prepared to vote in this House to exempt herself from the law. I want to know that our Prime Minister is not going to travel overseas on a foreign passport, and I want to know that members of Cabinet are not travelling around the world on foreign passports.

I would like to hear from every one of those MPs I have named. Let me apologise to any of them who are not in that position, but their names have been put there by their own party. In fact, if one of them gets up here and says in front of the whole Committee—so that it is subject to privilege—that he or she is not in that position, I will withdraw the amendment applying to that member. That is a pretty fair offer. Having questioned them in this way, I say that that is what I would do; I would be taking a point of order and saying that I do not have an overseas passport, that I give my allegiance purely to New Zealand. In fact, I have had members call out to me and ask me that, and I have repeated that I give my allegiance to this country.

I want to start with clause 6, and follow on from the comments made by Mr Jones. I do not agree with the interpretation he put to the Committee. My advice is that people can in fact renounce New Zealand citizenship. There is, on occasions, a requirement that one does so, if one takes out the citizenship of another country.

The point I want to make is that the advice the officials gave us, and the advice that was given, as I understand it, to the Privileges Committee, is that it is possible for someone to come into this House with two citizenships—that is perfectly legal—and that it is perfectly legal for that person in that circumstance then to renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship. The law is silent on that. That is one part of it.

I come back to the question—raised initially by Roger Sowry—as to why we have determined that the bill shall come into effect on 14 August, and go right through to the end of the electoral cycle. The reason is, quite simply, to cover the whole election period, the whole of the Parliament, and all members of Parliament. That is why we have not put the bill in the name of an individual MP.

That brings me to the other question that Roger Sowry asked me, which was whether I personally have any knowledge of another person in this situation. The answer to that question is that, no, I do not. But it seems to me to be sensible, in drafting this legislation, to make it a piece of law that applies to all members for the term of this Parliament.

I restate my advice, which I am giving to members now for the fourth or fifth time, that after this bill is passed, and, certainly, within the next few days, I will be writing to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I will be drawing this matter to its attention. I will be asking the select committee to undertake some work on this particular area, as members of Parliament are obviously very concerned to make sure that the rules are correct, that we have the right balance, and that we have not simply incorporated old legislation without giving it the careful consideration that we should, therefore leaving ourselves open to unintended consequences. I would have thought that a thorough, sensible review by the Justice and Electoral Committee would be a good thing, and that it would be supported widely by this Parliament.

It is the intention that, prior to this Parliament rising, another bill will be introduced, and the law will be changed. It will be clear to all, and we will have a consistent set of logic applying to it. At the moment, it is perfectly fine for a person to come into this House with dual citizenship, but if that person somehow, during the term of the Parliament, simply acknowledges, as Mr Duynhoven has done, that he or she is entitled to another nationality or citizenship, he or she is suddenly sprung from it.

I have to say that nobody in this country would have any doubts about Harry Duynhoven’s origins. His name is a very good indication of that. All have known that he has been a Dutch national. He has been very proud of that. He has advocated for that community because of his historical links to it. There is no doubt about that, so there is no question about the public being duped in any way.

What a sad apology of a speech that was from the Associate Minister of Justice! Why can the Minister not stop this nonsense of pretending that this bill somehow does every member of Parliament a favour? The Opposition parties have all said they do not want it and do not need it because it does not apply to any of them, but the Minister and his colleagues continue to say they have gone for that 14 August date because they want the provisions set out in Part 2 to apply to all members during this Parliamentary term. If there is just one member who is in trouble, then why can the Government not just put his name on the bill? It would still be wrong, but why not do that?

As for the Minister’s answer to the question about whether he has personal knowledge of any other person in the Labour Party or any of the Government-supporting parties being in a position similar to Harry Duynhoven’s—the Minister said he does not have personal knowledge—it absolutely shimmied around the edges. It was a classic Helen Clark “dance around the edges” answer—avoid and evade. It is quite clear, because the Minister was unable to stand up and unequivocally say that no other member of the Government-supporting parties has a problem, that the Government is protecting someone.

Did the Minister really consider all the provisions of section 55 of the Electoral Act when he came to put together Part 2? It seems to me to be quite clear that, under section 55, someone like Graham Kelly, who has been forced out of Parliament to take up his position as High Commissioner in Canada, could have chosen to remain a member of Parliament. Section 55(1) states: “The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—(a) if, otherwise than by virtue of being a head of mission or head of post within the meaning of the Foreign Affairs Act 1988, for 1 whole session of Parliament he or she fails, without permission of the House of Representatives, to give his or her attendance in the House;”—in other words, fails to turn up. Well, what that tells me is that Graham Kelly did not need to go, but was forced to go.

If we read a bit further in the Act, we see that it tells us that Harry Duynhoven does have to go; the rest of us, supposedly, are being forced into keeping him here. This is just the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have. It is, in its retrospective effect, saying to New Zealanders that it is all right for the law to expect that any other New Zealander knows the law—any other New Zealander is deemed to know the law—and therefore pays the consequence of breaking it, but a member of Parliament, a person who stood for election, does not have to know the Electoral Act. That is an absolute nonsense.

I hope the new Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, a man rumoured to have dual citizenship—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Of the United States?

—of the United States, in fact, and New Zealand—will explain to us why the provision in clause 6 has to be there. Why do we have to say it is OK for someone to give up his or her New Zealand citizenship during this term? What is so special about this term that allows this particular group of MPs to go off and seek citizenship anywhere else in the world? It is patently clear that the Labour caucus has a number of people who have breached the Act. It has a number of people who do not know the law.

We are being told today that, because Mr Duynhoven has such a huge majority, he is above the law; he is above the law by virtue of the fact that he polls well. We are also being told that by the provision being made as broad as it is, we are all, in some way, being done a favour by the Government. A simple thing for this Minister to do, something that no other Minister has been able to do—and he is the kind of guy who backs himself to do what no one else can—is to stand up, take a call, and say quite clearly that the only person in his caucus with a problem is Harry Duynhoven. He will not do it.

Part 2 of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill raises some very interesting questions. When we listened to the Hon Jim Sutton doing his best impersonation of John Wayne, it was clear that he does not understand what the bill means. He does not have a clue. He was sent down here by someone on a floor above him, and told to get in there and fight for Harry Duynhoven, but he missed the point completely, because the bill is about more than just the Hon Harry Duynhoven, as my colleagues have pointed out.

If this bill were designed to protect Harry Duynhoven only, clause 4 would state: “Section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act do not apply to the Hon Harry Duynhoven.” But that is not what it states. What it states is: “... the principal Act do not apply to any member of Parliament.” As my colleague Gerry Brownlee has pointed out, nobody on this side of the Chamber asked for it. In fact, I do not believe that anybody in the Chamber at all, apart from Labour Party members, has asked for this particular clause, and it seems to me that the whole issue would go away if each member of the Labour Party stood in the Chamber and said: “It’s not me.” At that point we would not have to worry any more about it, and we would be clear that the bill was about the Hon Harry Duynhoven.

The most disturbing thing about Jim Sutton’s comments was that he would have clause 4 amended to state: “Section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act do not apply to any member of Parliament, provided their majority is approved by the Hon Rick Barker.” That scares me on many levels, but the first level on which it scares me—and, let us be fair, Harry Duynhoven does have a large majority, but I am a bit concerned that Mr Barker would not be able to count that high—is that members of the Government have risen in this Chamber today and said that this measure should not matter, because of the size of Mr Duynhoven’s majority. That is just ridiculous. Would the same rules apply to David Parker, who sits on a majority of about 680 or 690, from memory?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Let him go.

He would be gone.

💬 Darren Hughes: I’ve got a great majority.

Darren Hughes pipes up. He should just get up and declare that he, clearly, has dual citizenship of New Zealand and some African nation, and tell the Committee what the story is and be done with it, or, alternatively, he should stand now and deny his citizenship of an African nation. It is pretty clear to the rest of us that that possibility exists. He should get up and take that opportunity.

The Hon Roger Sowry in his initial remarks raised the point as to why on earth we would include the date of 14 August 2002 as part of the retrospectivity of this legislation, when Harry Duynhoven, in his own evidence to the Privileges Committee, said that he applied for citizenship of the Netherlands this year. Why is that? That date is the date on which the writ was returned after the last election, but why would we be bothered about having the legislation take effect from that date, if no one other than Harry Duynhoven has broken the law?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Someone else has applied.

Someone else has applied. So we get back to the same central point that was raised with regard to the title and to the way in which Part 1 was put together. Members on this side of the Chamber are interested to know which member of the Labour Party is hiding. It would be very straightforward simply to say: “It’s not me”. I cannot understand why the media in this country are letting Dr Cullen get away with “No comment” when every other party in Parliament has declared, straight up, that none of its members have breached those rules. This is a dual standard. It is a very simple and straightforward matter to rectify. I say to those who believe that an exemption should be made just for Harry Duynhoven that if members opposite believe that he is so worthy of special legislation, why was he not put in Cabinet straight away? Why has Harry Duynhoven become indispensable now? It is a very odd trend, considering the record of that poor old member under the current Prime Minister.

New Zealand First will be putting an amendment to clause 4 of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill, to read as follows: “That clause 4 be amended by adding after the word ‘Parliament’ on line 5 of page 2 the words ‘except New Zealand First’.” We will be putting that amendment because, frankly, we do not want to accept the Labour Government’s open invitation to treachery, treason, and traitorous behaviour. We have no desire to accept its open invitation for us to join one or other of its members, in the likelihood of that happening. We want to ensure that we deny Labour the option of respectability, by our not being amongst the members of Parliament who will gain this unwanted protection. We are saying to Labour very clearly today: “Besmirch your own, but don’t besmirch us. Disgrace your own, but don’t seek to disgrace us.”

💬 David Benson-Pope: Who have you been giving taxi chits to?

I say to Mr Benson-Pope that he would have been much happier in a gay bar with lots of paedophiles, but I am not. He thinks paedophilia is a wanted emotion. He would defend anything. If he does not like this, he should keep quiet.

I say to the Labour Party: “Besmirch and shame your own, but don’t besmirch us. Disgrace your own, but don’t disgrace us. Don’t try to pretend that any party other than your own wants this protection.” For New Zealand First’s part, our 13 members want out of this disgraceful behaviour, this disgusting, unparalleled, unprecedented measure in the history of this Parliament. It is no use Labour members muttering under their breath. Labour Party members should get up and tell us why we should accept this protection. Did we ask for it? No. Who asked for it? Harry Duynhoven. He told everybody that he needed it, and we believed him. We still do.

💬 Simon Power: He’s honest.

At least he is honest. At least he is upright. At least he is straight and direct. We believe him. So who else will gain this protection? Labour Party members think they can get away with this by saying “No comment”. It is astonishing that this matter should be dealt with so lightly by the media of this country. It is one more indicator of non-neutrality, non-independence, and bias. If any other party said: “Go away, we’re not making a comment on a critical issue like this.”, it would be pilloried all over the front pages and it would be first on the 6 o’clock news.

💬 Dail Jones: Especially the Dominion Post.

Especially the Dominion Post. I wonder what that fish ‘n’ chips throwaway will make of this. That paper pays its journalists odium money for working for it. Typically, this will be on about page 9. An issue that is critical to our constitutional democracy will be on page 9, because what someone eats for dinner is more important to that paper. If one coughs, the Dominion Post reports that as something else. I say again to Labour that we will be voting for this amendment, and I hope our colleagues in the Chamber will.

💬 Stephen Franks: We’ll help you.

I thank the member very much. We want to be outside this balloon of disgraceful manipulation, disguise, secrecy, and Philby-like, Burgess-like, Blunt-like, and Maclean-like behaviour.

I have three issues to cover in this Part 2 debate. The first is an unintended—I am sure—or, I hope, unplanned effect of the proposed new provision that people can be kicked out of Parliament if they lose their New Zealand citizenship. This is a “Mugabe” clause. That might be funny to people who think that the idea of treachery or betrayal is funny. That might be funny to the senior Government whip, who has sat there letting his Labour spokespersons scoff at the idea of wanting to uphold affiliation and loyalty. But these kinds of provisions have been turned on their heads in other places. In May 1999 a woman was ejected permanently from the Turkish Parliament by the decree of the President. He had stripped her of her Turkish citizenship because she had dual citizenship and members did not like her wearing a headscarf in Parliament. That is what a provision like this is used for.

This kind of provision is used routinely in Central Asia where there is a bicultural society—lovely thing, that bicultural society—and the new indigenous majority does not like the Russians. So how has it got rid of the Russians from its Parliament? It has used a provision exactly like this to strip them of their citizenship and kick them out immediately. That is a lot easier than going through an electoral integrity bill. It is an awful lot easier than going through the procedures put into electoral legislation in 2000 by that Labour Government, which at that stage was claiming to uphold integrity in the constitution. A Government just has to use a section like this—find someone it does not like with dual citizenship, use executive power to strip that person of that citizenship, and it has got rid of its irritant.

That is the sort of reason that these things should not be going through this Parliament in one day, under urgency. They are constitutional issues and they need thought. If this Government were serious about a select committee review, it would have said that this bill had effect for a reasonable time so that the select committee could look at it. It could have said that this suspension lasted until, say, November, when the select committee could have taken account of the possibility that something like clause 6 could be misused to eject people the Government did not like. That is a constitutional provision, an odious provision, and the Government does not care about it.

I heard Government members scoffing earlier at the idea that members of Parliament had had any correspondence with people complaining about the action being taken today. I can tell members about one correspondent—Neil Harrap, inventor of the Fly by Wire adventure attraction. He is an exporter to a number of places in the United States, and the man who was caught, very unfortunately, by the tragic accident in Queenstown. Neil Harrap called me and said: “I thought they couldn’t do retrospective legislation, but I have just been told that Parliament has cancelled my insurance retrospectively under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.” I said that I did not think Parliament would have done that retrospectively. There is a strong constitutional convention against depriving people of rights retrospectively, and anything retrospective should be of the most limited extent possible. But I looked the Act up, and he was right.

The last time this Parliament deliberately did something retrospective, it cancelled Neil Harrap’s insurance, and now, having paid his premiums, he is facing liability for something he personally had nothing to do with. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act, he is facing full liability for that accident, without his insurance. This Government did that deliberately, despite the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision against retrospectivity, and now it is bringing this bill into Parliament with absolutely no comment from the Attorney-General under section 7 of that Act. Where is the legal guardian of the Cabinet’s conscience? Where is the Attorney-General? Where is the section 7 opinion? I have only just touched on the issues involved in Part 2, but we are being asked to race this bill through with a completely unnecessary degree of retrospectivity.

If the Government wanted to go along with New Zealand First and United Future, I could have understood it, but there is something sinister here. This is a corrupt process. Government members might laugh at the Turkish Parliament ejecting a member because it had stripped her of her dual citizenship, but a Government that can get the Greens to support it in this kind of retrospectivity, when they do not even know who it applies to, is of great concern. As the price of their compliance, the Greens have not insisted on knowing—or even asked—just what this legislation covers.

In the last Parliament this Government proudly proclaimed that it believed in the Electoral Integrity Act, and it went around the country saying how important it was that there was integrity in the electoral process. It campaigned on it, and passed the law, which will last for a while—but what is the first issue it deals with under the Electoral Act in this Parliament? The Government has just swept the idea of integrity past, saying “Oh, no, no. Don’t worry about it. Harry may have offended a little bit, but we’ll fix it for you, Harry, and we will fix it for this other unknown person, or persons, by retrospective legislation.” Where is the integrity in that? Where is the proper observance of constitutionalism in that? Where is the person and Government that would get up and defend the whole idea and notion of retrospectivity, and who would get up and say why this legislation has to be so extensive that it covers far more than Mr Duynhoven?

I can say to the Committee, and to the country, that my colleague, Mr Gerry Brownlee, has put forward an amendment on behalf of the National Party that says that we do not want this legislation to apply to us, because our views are clear. Each and every one of the members of the National Party has one allegiance—not several, but just one—and that is to New Zealand. We do not want a suspension of section 55(1)(b) of the Electoral Act. We are not asking to be able to give allegiance to some foreign power or prince, but Labour is—for the future, apparently. We are not asking to be able to get foreign passports, but Labour is.

The interesting thing here is that the bill is not just about the actions of Mr Duynhoven—or, indeed, of another person or persons—that occurred prior to today. If that were the case, then these provisions would be suspended only till today. But these provisions allow for members of the Labour Party to renew their foreign passports, and to make declarations of allegiance to foreign sovereigns and Governments in the future. So I wonder which one of those members wants to go out and renew his or her foreign passport. Surely Labour members have been put on notice in this Parliament today, and on days previous, that they are expected to govern in the good interests of this country.

I want to tell members that I listen to that prayer each day, and it asks us to govern in the interests of New Zealanders. I would have thought that that meant that we do not go out and get a passport of a foreign country, either in the past or in the future. We do not go out and take oaths of allegiance to foreign sovereigns and foreign princes. But, no, this Government wants to do precisely those things. Its excuse—miserable as it is—is that the Justice and Electoral Committee needs to be able to consider this matter for the future. That is simply a falsehood.

This legislation—if it is needed at all, and it is not—should cease to operate as of tomorrow, so that the country can consider whether its members of Parliament should be able to get foreign passports and make oaths of allegiance to other countries. But no, the Government will not allow New Zealanders to consider that, because for the next 2 years—up until the next election—there will be members of the Labour Party and the Green Party who go out to apply for passports, and who go out and give allegiance to foreign powers and foreign Governments. I have to ask myself what New Zealanders would say about that. Can we imagine the spectacle of Mr Locke enthusiastically taking up the prospect of declaring his allegiance to the principles of Fidel Castro? Members will hear it from today.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate being given the call, and I recognise that I am somewhat privileged. I do have other matters in Part 2 that I think this Committee needs to consider. Firstly, there is a highly rational reason for sections 55(1)(b) and (c). Although there has been an attempt to portray those sections as fuddy-duddy relics of ancient requirements that do not matter any longer, there is actually a very sensible pattern in them, which is no doubt the reason that Parliament left them in place when it last looked at the Electoral Act 3 years ago.

The rational reason is that the Act trusts the people. The Act provides that there is no reason that the people should not be left to elect someone who has dual citizenship, as long as they know about it. That sort of thing comes out in an election campaign. The people elect the person they choose, but that person cannot then succumb to the temptations that come in office and change his or her allegiance, fetter his or her discretion, or come into a relationship with a foreign power after he or she has been elected. If the person does so, that person has to resubmit himself or herself for effective ratification by the electorate. So the law is not penal or punitive. It simply provides that someone who changes his or her status in that kind of way needs to go and get a fresh mandate from the electorate. A person can do that. The law does not state that a person cannot owe dual allegiances, but it does state that if a person creates an allegiance while he or she is a parliamentarian, that person has to then go back and seek the re-approval of the people.

That is a very sound principle, and I cannot see that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be able to improve on it. Therefore, when we look at the provision for retrospective change in clause 5 of the bill, and at the period of retrospectivity, we see that this rushed process is saying that it does not matter that the people have elected us on the assumption that, on a change in our status, they will get another go. We will pre-empt that opportunity, not just for Mr Harry Duynhoven but also for anyone in this House. That is a very significant change to the vacancy rules. In effect, it changes the contract, the constitution, and the basis on which we are here as members.

We urge the Labour Party to vote for the amendments that Richard Prebble has put forward, by which the suspension of those sections would not apply to ACT. We do not want the benefit of this measure. We believe we have been elected here by New Zealanders who expect us to have to live with the consequences of the decisions that are made in this Parliament. A member who applies for Dutch citizenship, or any other citizenship, while he or she is an MP is, in effect, saying he or she will leave the rubble that he or she may create, and will be able to go off and live on a Dutch pension, irrespective of where the New Zealand economy goes to. Mr Duynhoven may have provided one of the most benign examples of what can happen. It may be that people think there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to go and live in the Netherlands. But there is everything wrong with a member of Parliament sitting here, voting, and affecting the future of New Zealanders, and meanwhile having an exit hatch wide open, without people being aware of that at the time the MP was elected.

The provision we are suspending states that if a person creates an escape hatch while still a member of Parliament, then he or she had better get a fresh mandate. We have effectively said that Mr Duynhoven, and all the other mysterious members who have created their escape hatches—from the Prime Minister, with her escape hatch to the United Nations, all the way down—can do so, using, and perhaps abusing, the powers they are given as members of Parliament, and perhaps selling their vote to foreign powers. They can take on an escape hatch by perhaps fettering their discretion, and pledging their vote—and that is not fanciful; it has happened in the British Parliament. Votes have been sold in return for future benefits.

The provision that we are suspending is part of the constitutional protection for New Zealanders that prevents a member of Parliament from being potentially tempted to use his or her powers to gain an advantage from a foreign power, or to gain some sort of concession. I am sure that the Dutch Ambassador raced Harry Duynhoven’s application through far faster than she would have done for any ordinary citizen. One can already see that an MP is in a privileged position to extract concessions from foreign powers.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to stand and take a call on Part 2. I ask members a question: what is the difference between an Aussie MP and a New Zealand Labour MP? The answer is that the Aussie MP knows the difference between right and wrong, and that lot on the Government side of the Chamber have no idea about that. I am absolutely ashamed to be part of a Parliament in which we have a Government that uses the law with impunity to get its own ends for no good motive, and that treats the law with cynicism.

This Government has done that twice in the last month. This is the second time we have been put into urgency with regard to retrospective legislation, and I think that is a disgrace. I say to the Minister, Rick Barker, that he should not pass this legislation on my behalf—I do not want it or need it. He should not pretend that he is doing any of us on the Opposition side of the Committee a favour—other than the Greens, who would not know a principle if they saw one. They would not know a principle if they tripped over it. That is the great disappointment about Rod Donald, who thinks he is the defender of the faith, the defender of democracy, and the defender of the constitution. He is none of those things. He is so hungry for power and so willing to get into bed with the Government that he will do anything, and this is one of the things he will do.

I mean no disrespect to any of the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber when I say it is great to be tangata whenua. It is great to be mana whenua, and I will tell members why that is. I have no need for this law. I have no need for an allegiance to anybody else, and I have no need whatsoever for a passport from any other country. Whether I am in this House or outside Parliament I have no need for it, and I do not want it. Rick Barker can have his legislation, because I do not want or need it. I know where my allegiance lies, and it is to this country, New Zealand, and it is to New Zealanders. I do not need some other country’s flag to be flying in my office; I do not need a Dutch flag or any other flag. I do not mean any disrespect to those other nationalities, but if one comes to this place and swears allegiance to this country, then that is all one should have. We should have no accommodation at all for members of Parliament who want to hold dual citizenship—no accommodation at all.

Harry Duynhoven made a mistake—tough. He breached the law. His seat became vacant, and certain things should have flowed from that, but they did not. Now that we have seen what is flowing from it, we can see the Government is so arrogant that it will use the law to give an advantage to one of its own when it suits it. But the Government has ultimately brought great disgrace on this House. It has used the law with impunity, and brought this House into disrepute. I am ashamed to be part of a Parliament in which we have a Labour Government that does not know the difference between right and wrong, and that is using the law to advantage itself. All that the Government can think of is to hang on to power—never mind about the constitution, democratic principle, or what is right. No, it does not mind about any of those things.

I will give some advice to the members on the Government side of the Committee, including the whippersnapper David Cunliffe, who is just new here, and who is the great white hope of the Labour Party. He thinks he knows everything, but he must get something in his head. If David Cunliffe seriously wants to be a leader of this country, he had better seriously understand the difference between right and wrong. This legislation is absolutely wrong. It smells. I absolutely loathe what is happening here today.

The Māori members on the Government side of the Chamber should think hard about this bill. If they use the law with impunity to advantage one of their own, it can also be used with impunity to disadvantage them. They have to think about that. What is happening today, whereby the law may be suspended or bent, is part of the history of our country, and Māori were the people at the receiving end of the law when it was sometimes suspended.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise with significant concern about the provisions in this part. Again, I want to challenge the Government about its double standards. Only 6 weeks ago the Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, said that if a person broke the law, he or she had to face the music. When my situation arose and the Solicitor-General alleged that I had broken the law, Ministers of the Government said the law applied regardless of whether they agreed with it or not—and the Government has introduced a bill to change the very section of the Guardianship Act that I am alleged to have broken. Government Ministers said that did not matter, and I had to comply with the law of the land on the day. On that basis, the top law enforcement officer in this country will drag me before the High Court and try to hang me for doing my job.

Mr Harry Duynhoven then came along. He was not doing constituency work and was not trying to help anybody, but, as he said to the Privileges Committee, he wanted an extra passport so that he and his children could travel easily in Europe. On the basis of that, he breached the Electoral Act. Then the Government changed its tune suddenly. Only 4 weeks earlier, it set the moral standard, and said that Nick Smith had to front up and account for his actions. Suddenly, the rules are different for Harry Duynhoven, and I ask Government members why that is. When the Solicitor-General alleges that I have broken the law I have to face the music, but when the same Solicitor-General finds that Harry Duynhoven had breached the Electoral Act, the Government is to pass retrospective legislation. Section 55 of the Act is the very section that, if I am found guilty, will potentially put my position as a member of this House at risk.

Government members say that this legislation is a matter of principle. Well, golly gee! The principle goes no further than looking after their mates, and having a different standard for those who sit on the Government side of the Chamber. I listened to the debate last night and all morning, and I have yet to hear a single member from the Government explain why I should be hung and Harry Duynhoven should walk free. That is what the Government is saying should happen.

Would Clayton Cosgrove, the noisy member from Waimakariri, explain why he will vote for legislation that changes the very section that, if I am convicted of the alleged breach of the Guardianship Act, will put my career at risk, and why he thinks that I should go to the High Court, but not Harry Duynhoven? Will he support the amendment proposed by the United Future party, which has at least been consistent? I am not asking for the protection of this Parliament, and nor should Harry Duynhoven. But I am saying that at least the United Future party is being consistent.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Which of the five lawsuits against you are you talking about?

Mr Cosgrove wants to divert attention from the issue. He does not want to answer the question of why there is one standard for members of the Government and a different standard for members of the Opposition.

It is a damning indictment on this Parliament when there is one set of rules for members on one side of the Chamber and a different set of rules for those on the other side. I ask Government members to examine their consciences and to think about whether they are being consistent and fair to this wonderful institution of Parliament that we are privileged to sit in. It is just a pure double standard. This is straight cynical politics. The Government does not want to hold a by-election. It will conveniently change section 55(1) of the Act because it may hang Harry Duynhoven, but it will leave me lined up on another provision in section 55. If something is good enough for one, it is good enough for all. Margaret Wilson has to explain this bill. Other Ministers like Damien O’Connor have to explain it. Only 6 weeks ago my local newspaper stated that everybody must comply with the law—and Harry Duynhoven is included.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would be comfortable with giving ACT another call. There are 15 amendments. ACT have 80 percent of those.

I would like to follow up from what the honourable Minister, who is now back in the chair, said about half an hour ago. He answered calls from members of the Opposition who had asked for assurance that this legislation was not being passed to protect other members who have not come forward, like Harry Duynhoven, to declare that they have breached that Act. In answer to calls for the Minister to assure the House, he said that he did not know of any other Labour MPs who were doing this. I do not know of any, either. No one on this side of the House knows of any other, because our questions have not been answered. We have asked and asked. We have been told that the media have asked and asked, and they have not been told. They have just been told “No comment.”

As the Hon Richard Prebble said, clause 4 of Part 2 is the crunch clause. It is really appropriate that this is happening 12 months after all of us who became MPs walked into this House and felt very proud to be part of this Westminster tradition, and privileged to be elected to represent people out there. We took crash courses in the unwritten constitution of New Zealand, courses in select committee procedure, and walked through the corridors of these buildings. I felt really honoured to be walking down the corridors looking at some of the photographs on the walls, of people who had been elected to this place before. I find it absolutely appalling that just 12 months after we came into this place, we are in here under urgency, disregarding all of those things that we were taught by the people who work in this place who are not elected members of Parliament, who taught us about the importance of public input into a select committee, who told us that this was one of the only Parliaments in the world and the Commonwealth that has public submissions, and where people can appear at a select committee and have their say.

So what do we do, 12 months down the track? We bring in legislation that exempts MPs from a law, because one Labour MP has broken that law. I find that absolutely despicable. I am so proud at least of the fact that the Hon Richard Prebble has moved an amendment that ACT MPs not be included in this despicable legislation. No wonder the public out there have no respect for us! No wonder they think we are a bunch of ratbags! If we pass legislation under urgency that exempts MPs from legislation, I can understand fully why they have no respect for us, because this legislation brings this whole House into disrepute.

As a New Zealand MP I visited the House of Commons. I was proud to be there as a New Zealand MP and to understand more about the Westminster system and why we have the Westminster system. I can see now how far we have strayed from that system, when we are so shallow that we bring into the House legislation like this.

If the Labour Government is indeed just using this legislation to exempt Harry Duynhoven and to save him from going through a by-election, why did it not agree to the amendments? It could have agreed to the amendment moved by the Hon Peter Dunne. Ideologically Labour members are opposed to the ones that National and ACT bring in, but they could have easily agreed to Peter Dunne’s amendment. If they had nothing to hide and if they had no one else whom they were protecting, they would have agreed to that amendment. They could have shown that they at least had one skerrick of decency left in them.

But why are we not surprised, when we see this Government use its power to abuse the Westminster system in terms of trying to overturn the Standing Orders with Business Committee dodgy deals, and with a Prime Minister who signs paintings that she does not even paint and who gets rid of people in the private sector whom she does not like—people who send private emails to other people, criticising the Government? This is a really sad day. I am proud to support Richard Prebble’s amendment, which excludes ACT MPs.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is the first time I have spoken in this debate and I want to cap a couple of issues prior to the vote being taken. First, I am going to ask this Government, and its members, to please, please allow the members of Parliament who want to be dissociated from this bill—who have moved amendments to allow our parties to be excluded—to have that right. Could the Labour members please not exercise the tyranny of power that they have by being a majority collective, with the Greens tagged on, to deny us our right to exclude ourselves from the privileges they seek to ordain themselves with. We do not want it and we do not need it. Labour members should respect that request and allow our vote to carry. That is the first point.

The second point is that many members have asked who this other person is, or other persons are, that this bill is now clearly designed to protect. It has occurred to me that this person must be one of the favoured few at the top echelon of the party, because Harry Duynhoven—hapless Harry “two-flag” Duynhoven—is not one of the Prime Minister’s most favoured. Harry Duynhoven had to go kicking and screaming to get an Associate Minister’s job. Harry Duynhoven was in the same category as Dover Samuels, Taito Phillip Field, Janet Mackey, and all those who sit slightly to the right of the Labour caucus, who are not looked upon with favour. Therefore, the only reason this Government is moving to protect Harry Duynhoven is that there is someone more senior who is in the same position and who has not come forward and identified himself or herself.

That means that it is a senior person—very likely a list person, which means he or she could not win a by-election, because there would not be one—and that brings the suspicion very, very narrowly down. It is easy to dispel any suspicion. All the Minister has to do is stand up, and truthfully and honestly tell the Committee who that person is, and stop wasting everybody’s time. The talkbacks are going crazy right now. The one thing that MPs have been slated for in the Sunday Star-Times and everywhere else is their protection of their perks. The worst thing that has now been seen out in public is that they are protecting their jobs—protecting their jobs, when clearly they have broken the law.

I want to bring this notice to the attention of the Committee that I have had handed to me by the Hon Matt Robson. It states that Sir Howard Morrison and the Manaakitanga Aotearoa Trust are coming here with a group of young people on 12 August. Young Māori leaders who are role models are coming to Parliament to present their kaupapa and to present who they are. They are looking for leadership—for principled leadership—and for role models.

What are we going to show those young people when they get here? I ask the Green Party whether we are going to show them that our principles are malleable, that we will adjust our principles when one of our people breaks the law; but, when one of those young people breaks the law, will Metiria Turei go forward and change the law to help them? Of course she will not. The Greens will do it to protect that lot over there because the Green Party has become the new lackey party jumping to Helen Clark’s call. The only thing the Greens are saying is: “How high Helen, and when can I come down?”. That is it. The Greens would defy gravity on instruction from Helen Clark because their principles are malleable.

There is a simple message that I state as a law and order spokesman who deals with young people: one cannot go out and demand of young people that they adhere to the law, that they accept their punishment when they have breached it, and that they front up and take total self-responsibility for their actions, if here at the highest court in the land, when a member of Parliament breaks the law, we simply change the law.

And when a member of Parliament has broken the law and is too afraid to come out and put up his or her hand and say: “Don’t worry Harry Duynhoven, I did it too.”, we expand the change in the law to cater for that person so that that member never ever has to be identified. That is not an example that my party and other parties want to be party to at all.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Earlier a question was asked of the Government whip as to who he was voting on behalf of, and he was prepared to answer. Can he tell us whether he has a proxy for the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is voting to exempt herself from the Electoral Act?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): My advice is that a party vote is not differentiated. I thank the member for raising the matter.

was called for on the question,

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to:

to add the words “except Tim Barnett”.