Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. We have had an interesting debate throughout the day, and I want to highlight a number of points to confirm that this legislation is to cover this forty-seventh Parliament from the day the writs were returned until the general election. During the remaining part of this Parliament, I will be asking the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this piece of the legislation. I do not want to recap on the issues, because they have been gone over thoroughly enough, but I want to highlight one inconsistency, among many—that is, if someone is elected to this Parliament who has a passport for, or is a national of, another country and continues with that right throughout his or her time in this Parliament, there is no problem; but if someone wishes to pick up a right that he or she has by birth, or by foreign law, then there is a problem.

The ACT party seems to have a view that people in this Parliament should be New Zealand nationals only. Well, we have never, in my opinion, made a considered view that that should be the case. The riding to the Justice and Electoral Committee will give it the opportunity to consider all those issues, including the view of the ACT party. It will be able to take submissions from the public and get this legislation sorted out before the next election.

Arguments have been put up about retrospectivity. I restate the view that retrospective legislation is not good where it takes away people’s rights retrospectively, but that is not the case where it confers rights and privileges retrospectively. This Parliament has passed an amount of legislation of that kind. I recall that one of the first measures I witnessed in this Parliament was a rates validation bill for the Whakatane District Council. Without that legislation the council’s rates would not have been able to be collected. There are many, many other examples of that kind.

This bill is a fair piece of legislation. It confers a right on all MPs. To do as some would suggest—confer it on only one MP—would have been wrong. To confer it on one MP, up to a certain period of time, would also be wrong. It is not good to confer a particular right on one MP and not on all members. That is what New Zealand First and United Future were saying—that we should do it for one. I do not agree with that view. I commend the bill to the House. It has been thoroughly debated, and I look forward to the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee.

From time to time we get involved in some very heated debates in this Chamber. They are debates that have an ideological background, they are on policy issues, and this is the right place for them to take place. I have always been proud to be a member of this House and to take part in those debates and issues. One does not have to agree with those on the other side.

Today, for the first time since I came to this Parliament, I felt ashamed of the way this House has been treated by the Labour majority. I felt ashamed that a coincidence has arisen, whereby the Speaker has decided not to make a decision, until next week, on the Privileges Committee report, thereby giving a window of opportunity for the Government to change the law for Mr Duynhoven. It has done that so that Mr Duynhoven, who has breached the law, who has vacated his seat—in the determination of the Privileges Committee, the Clerk of the House, and the Solicitor-General—will be deemed not to have done so, because the weight of the majority of his colleagues in the Labour Party is to change the law, rather than adhere to the law.

That is not a precedent we should be proud of. That is not something the Minister says is fair. In the Committee stage no changes were made, despite, for the first time in my experience, MPs getting up and pleading that they did not want this change for themselves. This change to the law does not affect anyone outside this Chamber. It only applies to MPs in this Parliament; not in any previous Parliament, nor in the next one. It is only for this Parliament. National does not want to be covered by this law. New Zealand First does not want to be covered by this law. ACT does not want to be covered by this law. We are happy for the law to stand, as it is. But Labour decided that not only would it change the law for Mr Duynhoven but also it would change the law for all members of Parliament.

Why would Labour want to do that? To answer that question one has to go to Dr Cullen and find out whether any other Labour MPs have breached this law. Despite every party asking time and time again, Labour refused to answer it. Labour voted, along with the Greens, to make sure this law went right back to the first swearing in of MPs in the Parliament. It did not go back to when Mr Duynhoven breached the law, but way beyond that.

💬 Rodney Hide: How do you explain that?

The only way one can explain that is that somebody else has been caught up in this, as well. New Zealanders have a right to know who that is. It is a serious issue, because, if it were a Minister, then a Minister has been sitting in this Chamber making decisions, signing papers, and being party to making regulations that we are effectively validating, through the back door. There is no validation legislation here that says that the Minister, whichever one it is who has broken the law, needs those regulations validated. The Government does not want to go through anything messy and honest like that. It wants to validate it for everybody, so that the Labour culprit can get away with it.

That is outrageous. It is impossible to imagine that happening in another democratic Parliament in the world. I wonder how the Clerk of the House will explain this at the next Commonwealth Clerk’s meeting in trying to make us look like a leading parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth. When the people who have been a party to this go home tonight they will not feel, in their stomachs, they have been part of some great victory. The people who have been a party to this wanted to make sure that the law was changed in such a way that not only does it protect Mr Duynhoven, whose case we all know about, but also protects somebody else whose case we do not know about and may never know about—

💬 Rodney Hide: Never.

Not ever. That is an outrageous situation to be in. I have never seen us spend so much time on a piece of legislation for one individual, let alone a member of Parliament. I also make the point that the retrospectivity of this legislation, which goes way back to when the House was sworn in, also allows for unknown people to get off. That is quite unusual.

I really regret that the House has been placed in this position. I believe, and I want to say this to you, Mr Speaker, because you were not here last night, that I think you have to ask yourself about the role you played, unwillingly or unwittingly, in allowing a window of opportunity like this to arise. It never needed to happen. The law is absolutely clear. The Speaker must declare a vacancy when it occurs. I understand you will have been receiving advice on the issue, and I want those people who are giving that advice to also reflect on this. What has been done here today cannot be undone. What has been done here today is a precedent for a Parliament in the future to make decisions about an individual MP’s right to sit in this Chamber. We have no formal written constitution, and that may be the weakness we are being exposed to at the moment. That may be the problem. But I think what we are being exposed to is a Labour Party that did not want to fight a by-election, and told us that Mr Duynhoven would win anyway, so there was no point, and we should just change the law. What a pathetic excuse!

Does that mean if it was a list MP or a marginal MP, or Mr Parker on a slim majority, Labour would not have used that excuse and we would have had a by-election? Does that mean we have a different rule depending on the size of one’s majority? Does that mean if someone comes in here with a large majority, and then breaks the rules, that person should not worry about it because the rules will get changed so that he or she can stay, because there is no point in having a by-election? That is not what parliamentarians should believe. The Labour Party should not be scared of a by-election. No politician should be scared of a by-election. I think that is what has driven this issue. I think Mr Prebble was dead right. The word “Timaru” has never been far from Labour’s minds on this issue.

This is a very sad day for this Parliament. This debate will be written up in parliamentary journals. It will be looked at around the world. No one else will find a democracy that has gone to such lengths to protect one of its own who is named, and one who is unknown but who happens to be in the Labour Party. That much we know, because the Labour Party simply refuses to deny it. I think that is outrageous. I think New Zealanders will believe that that is outrageous, and they deserve a lot better from a democracy.

I rise to support not only this bill but also one of the most honourable members in the House. Despite all the patronising flummery from the previous speaker, whose political career as an electorate MP is historic, there would be few mean-spirited members in this Chamber who would disagree with me that very few members would exceed the work rate of the Hon Harry Duynhoven, both as a Minister and as an electorate MP. He is an honourable person who works his guts out in his electorate, and has returned huge majorities—[Interruption] I am glad the two ACT members interject. He has returned huge majorities and mandates from his people, unlike a number of members, Mr Sowry included, who were rejected by their electorates.

When we talk about dual standards in this House, I want members to reflect on a point I made earlier today. In my view there is a huge difference between holding dual citizenship, taking up a foreign passport, which gives one only the rights of a citizen, and, on the other hand, sitting in this Chamber as a member elected to the New Zealand Parliament, charged with advocating for one’s constituents, but, at the same time, holding a warrant from a foreign power—being a diplomat appointed by a foreign power, charged with advocating for that foreign power. If that is not a conflict of interest, I do not know what is. I ask members opposite to reflect on their colleague, Richard Worth, who, as we know, is the honorary consul for Monaco. I ask them to reflect on that.

The people of New Plymouth will have listened to this debate, as will others around New Zealand. They will reflect on the puffery and arrogance of certain members of Parliament, the time wasting, and the money that has been wasted today by people not putting aside politics, not acknowledging an honourable member. Members on the other side talk about principle. I find it ironic that none of them has stood to defend the position of Mr Worth, or to explain his position. I ask them to reflect on that. I ask them to reflect on the scorn, the ill manner, and the ill spirit they have poured on Mr Duynhoven for hours today. I know that certain people around this country will also reflect on that.

It is interesting to listen to the speech of that Labour member of Parliament. He talks about being mean-spirited and making all sorts of accusations about the way in which members of Opposition parties conduct themselves. Well, that was one of the most mean-spirited, irrelevant speeches I have heard in Parliament for a long time, but it was the customary speech that we expect from Mr Cosgrove. As members on this side of the House know, Ron Mark is on a roll, and Mr Cosgrove had better look out in the South Island.

New Zealand First made it very clear in the Committee stage that we do not want to be part of this bill. We sought an amendment to be excluded from the opportunities given in this bill. We do not want to be associated with the likes of Clayton Cosgrove. He can have the immunity, if he likes. He can put it where he likes. New Zealand First does not want to be part of any of these Labour members of Parliament who want the protection of this bill and who want the right to swear allegiance to a foreign country.

That is what Mr Cosgrove has just done. He has given himself the right to swear allegiance to a foreign country. Mr Worth, the National Party member, said that if he swears allegiance to a foreign country, sack him as a member of Parliament. Mr Cosgrove wants the protection, but Mr Worth does not. Clearly, Mr Cosgrove does not understand the bill. He may be protecting somebody, but he does not know who it is.

The real shame about this legislation is that even the Minister in charge of the bill does not know whom he is protecting. He is not in the inner circle of the Labour Party. He does not know. Mr Barker has passed this bill through the House blindly. He does not know which member of this minority Labour Government is getting the protection under this bill, but he has done his job as a willing lapdog of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. He has put this bill through the House and he has done as he was told. Some member of this minority Labour Government will benefit from it. We have asked time and time again who it is.

New Zealand First asked to be excluded. We feel violated by this legislation. It is a violation of our rights as members of Parliament. We are violated by the Labour Party, which has insisted we be made part of this dreadful treasonous, traitorous, type of legislation. We do not want any part of it. Labour can have it. But Labour has insisted that we become part of it. Why could it not just exclude New Zealand First, or ACT, or National? We are loyal New Zealanders. I do not really speak on behalf of ACT—we have very little in common—but we are first and foremost loyal New Zealanders.

💬 Rodney Hide: Unlike the Greens.

Unlike the Greens, and unlike the New Zealand Labour Party. The New Zealand Labour Party has established in this legislation that it is the Labour Party; it is not a New Zealand Labour Party. It will allow foreign people now to become foreign nationals, after the passing of this legislation, without being tossed out of this Parliament.

This bill has three stages. There is 14 August 2002, to 10 June 2003. Clearly, someone in the Labour Party lodged an application to become a foreign citizen, or swore allegiance to a foreign country in that time, because the next day—on 11 June, in the second category—is the day on which Harry Duynhoven did that. From 12 June onwards, to the passing of this bill, anyone in this Parliament can swear allegiance to a foreign country and this Labour Party supports it. It is an absolute disgrace. New Zealand First feels violated that we have to be caught up in this disgraceful state of affairs. Words just about fail me.

Mr Ron Mark of New Zealand First made the point during the Committee stage that we say to young New Zealanders: “You should obey the law. The law is there to be obeyed, and if you disobey the law you get punished.” We look at our prisons where 55 percent of the people in prisons for violent crime are Māori. They have committed an offence, they break the law, and sometimes they go to prison. They have committed an offence, invariably they put their hand up, and away they go. Here we have a Labour member of Parliament who has committed an offence, and he or she is not prepared to put his or her hand up—not prepared to nod, in the way we would say in the criminal courts. And Miss “Turituria” here was very strong on the support of Māori and suchlike.

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you ask the honourable member to pronounce my name correctly?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, but the member should do so.

I am sorry. I am struggling, and I will not use the name, rather than mispronounce it. I apologise. The Labour member who has just interjected is very strong on looking after the youth of our country and the way in which young Māori should progress. What will she tell young Māori next time she is on the marae? What will she say when they say to her that there was a Labour member of Parliament who breached the law, and she protected that Labour member of Parliament? She was not willing to let that Labour member of Parliament face up to his or her actions. She will sit here, collect her ministerial salary, live in the ministerial house, use the ministerial car, use the credit card, and she will go on to the marae and talk to someone who has not got a bean.

How can she tell that person what to do, when she is so culpable in this breach of the Electoral Act? She has no standing and cannot possibly have any standing whatsoever with young Māori or any Māori, bearing in mind what Labour is saying to young Māori generally: that the Labour Party supports the taking of foreign citizenship by members of Parliament, and that those Labour members of Parliament who then take foreign citizenship will be the ones who will decide the foreshore and the seabed of New Zealand. What sort of a standard is that? Labour members of Parliament will decide the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand for Māori, having already taken allegiance to a foreign country—some of them as Ministers, and one of them is a Minister who flies a foreign flag in his office. Well, what sort of a Labour Party is this? [Interruption]

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I think the member who interjects has an American passport.

Well, the member and I might both be able to claim American passports. I have only one passport. Since my adulthood I have only ever had one passport, a New Zealand passport. It has not occurred to me to get another one. This bill does not apply to me. I do not want it to apply to me, and we in New Zealand First have said that we do not want to be associated with this legislation, but the Labour Party has insisted that we be part of this legislation. We made it clear that we wanted to support Harry Duynhoven from the very beginning, and we were prepared to support Harry Duynhoven. We voted in the Committee stage to support Harry Duynhoven continuing as a member of Parliament. We could not get the Labour Party’s support for that amendment. They voted against it. There was an amendment in the Committee stage to support Harry Duynhoven continuing—being exempted from his action and being given an allowance to continue as an MP. We supported Harry Duynhoven, we voted for the amendment in the Committee stage, but the Labour Party opposed it. What is New Zealand First supposed to do? We said we would support him, we did support him, other members of this House supported him, but the Labour Party voted against it.

What a funny state of affairs we are in! The Labour Party, I believe, is just using Harry Duynhoven as a front man. There is clearly somebody else there. This bill is not called the “Electoral (Vacancy) Amendment Bill”; it is called the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. Two or more people are involved in this legislation, not just one. We have asked, time and time again: who is it? The Labour Party is condemned. This is an abominable piece of legislation. I regard it as being comparable to treason and traitorous behaviour. New Zealand First does not have anything to do with it.

I rise in support of this bill.

The ACT party rises to oppose it, and the fact that the previous Government speaker can speak on a constitutional measure of this importance in one sentence shows the contempt with which the Labour Government is treating this Parliament, our constitution, and the public of New Zealand, whom it now does not believe it needs to be accountable to. I am a strong supporter of our parliamentary system and of the Westminster Parliament. I say to the House that what we—and I say “we” because every MP is implicated—Parliament, are doing today will do great damage to the reputation of this institution and to the concept of parliamentary democracy and the concept that we as a Parliament are under the law, but we are going to do a lot of damage to a lot of people, as well. The Hon Harry Duynhoven, who has been proud to be the highest of the high—and only another MP knows what a majority means—and has been proud to have a majority of 14,000 will, in about an hour’s time, have a majority of three. He will have gone from the highest of the high to the lowest of the low.

And, of course, he will be regarded not as the MP for New Plymouth but as the MP for a majority of members of Parliament. That is a terrible thing to do to him. Those who advised him to take this course, rather than take the honourable Westminster course of resigning, are no true friends of Mr Duynhoven or of this Parliament. But it has also damaged other reputations. The Attorney-General, who is supposed to uphold the law, has damaged her reputation. Nobody can possibly credit the sorts of statements that she has been making as being proper statements of the law. The Leader of the House has damaged his reputation, because he should be the Leader of the House.

I have to say that I am starting to sympathise with Mr Peters. I had better look more carefully at immigration when the immigration Minister can tell us that she cannot understand section 55 of the Electoral Act, which the Solicitor-General told us was a clear, unambiguous piece of legislation with a beneficial purpose—and what was that? The beneficial purpose was to ensure that every member of Parliament owed allegiance to the public of New Zealand, and not to a foreign power.

Let me just state what the law is. When I look at the Electoral Act, I have admiration for our Parliament. The law is quite simple. We do not discriminate against people who have dual citizenship. But what we do say is that they then must swear allegiance when they become an MP, and as an MP they must not exercise their foreign citizenship, and they certainly must not take it up. That is a very good, sensible rule. We have a member of Parliament who says he did not give it a thought and has broken it, and, as a result of that, we have now rewritten the law for him and damaged our reputation. When I first came into Parliament, Mr Speaker—and you will remember this—there was a major court case. It was called Fitzgerald v Muldoon, in 1975.

What the Chief Justice then said was that the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal. It is in the 300-year old bill of rights, and he said that it is still part of our law. The judge quoted that: “The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this: namely that Parliament, thus defined, has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever.” And further, it states: “No person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”

We have done that, too, have we not? The legislation of Parliament in the Electoral Act, section 129, “By-elections for members representing electoral districts”, states, in subsection (1): “If the Speaker is satisfied that the seat of a member elected to represent an electoral district has become vacant, the Speaker must, without delay, publish a notice of the vacancy and its cause in the Gazette.” I just say to you, Mr Speaker, that everyone in this House, including those people who abstained today, all know that that seat has been vacant, and that it has been vacant for more than a month. If the Prime Minister, when she learnt about it on 4 July, had advised that, within 12 hours, she had suspended Mr Duynhoven’s warrant, then that would be what I call “without delay”. I do not call waiting a month “without delay”; and the case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon—and the Labour Party used to be very much in favour of that court case—has been trampled over today.

I just make this point when we talk about Mr Duynhoven’s being very popular. It is very true that he is popular, but his reputation has taken a terrible pounding in many ways, and one of those ways is as a Minister. The Government, I understand, went back to see whether he had exercised any authority that could be challenged—whether he had actually done something as a Minister that could be challenged in court. Do members know that the Government had to go back to April to find such a decision? I used to make half a dozen such decisions before breakfast!

What do these Associate Ministers actually do? Why is Mr Duynhoven getting a ministerial car and an office if he has not actually made any decisions that could be reviewed? What the Government has done to Mr Duynhoven’s reputation, I think, is appalling. If he had gone on television last night and said: “My colleagues want to pass a piece of legislation to rewrite the law and let me into Parliament. But I recognise that, even though I did not know it, I was making a mistake, I take responsibility for it, and I have tendered my resignation. I am leaving it to the good people of New Plymouth to decide whether to return me.”, then I think he probably would have been returned with a huge majority. But he did not take that honourable Westminster course, and those who had advised him not to were not doing him a favour.

We are left with the great suspicion that there are Labour members of Parliament who have actually done far worse things than Mr Duynhoven, who did know what they were doing, and who have sworn allegiance. We are in the interesting situation where every single political party has gone back and checked its MPs, and has said: “We are not affected.” ACT party members—and New Zealand First followed us—said that we do not even want to be covered by this bill. We moved amendments, and I greatly object to the Green Party’s demands that members actually have the right to swear allegiance to overseas countries.

Mr Keith Locke may want to join the Taliban, as he now will be able to within an hour, but no one in the ACT party wants to do that. I find it an outrage that the Labour majority is forcing that upon us, and, in doing so, is lowering the standing of this Parliament. As a result of what has happened today, damage has been done to the Speakership, to the Attorney-General, to the Leader of the House, and to Harry Duynhoven—and to all of them, because we do not know who the traitors are. We just know that there are people in the Labour Party who are voting for a measure to enable them to swear allegiance to a foreign State.

Let me make it quite clear that I think, as an MP, that MPs who do that are traitors to New Zealand. Members have an obligation to serve the people of New Zealand, and, as the Bible says, we cannot serve two masters. But that is what Parliament has decided—[Interruption]—eight times in the past.

And now we have the Minister of Immigration, who says she cannot even understand the law. This is a very sad day for the New Zealand Parliament.

I want to make a brief contribution and spell out three reasons that we are not supporting the third reading of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. The first is that this measure was originally introduced as a way of dealing with the particular circumstances concerning Harry Duynhoven. We were concerned that the scope of the bill, particularly in Part 1, took it far beyond Mr Duynhoven’s situation, and I moved an amendment at the Committee stage to limit its application to the period expiring 6 August 2003. That amendment was not accepted by the Committee and, therefore, changed the basis of our previous support for the bill.

The second issue I want to raise follows on, in less flamboyant language, from the point made by Mr Prebble. We now have a situation in which there will be a spectre of suspicion over a number of members in the House, because of the deeply held fear that there are many other members who are hiding behind Mr Duynhoven in this particular instance. Unfortunately, the debate has not clarified that position one iota. In fact, because the debate has not clarified it, it has added to that sense of suspicion and concern amongst the public.

The third point is a plea to all members of Parliament, because the bill that we are, it seems, about to pass now contains an open invitation to everybody within the next 2 years to do all they can to acquire foreign citizenships, nationalities, or appointments—you name it—and have the full protection of the law. All members of Parliament should reflect very carefully upon that, because the gaze of public scrutiny will be upon all of us to see who is brazen and foolish enough to take up the opportunities that this legislation inflicts upon us. The irony will be that, as we pass this bill, we are putting in place the mechanism for a much tighter standard in future. The pressure, as I think Mr Prebble suggested some time ago, will be to restrict the eligibility further so that no one who holds dual citizenship can be a candidate for the New Zealand Parliament.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No.

I thought the member had, but—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: He must have meant that.

Whether he said it or not, the point is that the pressure for us to tighten the law in that regard will become much stronger as a result of this measure. So there is an irony involved here. On the one hand, it seeks to protect the circumstances of Mr Duynhoven, and, on the other, it creates a much wider situation that will produce an outcome that, I believe, will see us adopting much tighter rules in the future. I do not think that that is what anyone intended, and I think this will turn out to be something Parliament will regret in the future. It is a matter of great regret to me that we have created this anomaly through the way in which this bill was drafted.

The Greens will support the third reading of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. The Greens are committed to changing ineffective, unworkable, and unjust laws, be they cannabis prohibition, repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act, or, as in this case, the suspension of section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the Electoral Act. We consider every piece of legislation that comes before us on its merits, and in a rational and consistent manner. That is why we agree that this bill should be broadly based and cover all current MPs during the whole of this parliamentary term. We do not support legislation that concerns specific individuals only. We believe that where a deficiency in the law has been discovered, it should be remedied for everyone, not just for some.

Mr Dunne and others have argued that the bill should apply to Mr Duynhoven only, and that it should apply retrospectively only, not until the next election. The primary reason seems to be that other MPs who may have been affected by section 55 are hiding behind Mr Duynhoven’s courage. We do not believe that United Future’s desire to smoke out other MPs is a good enough reason to undermine the basic principle that the law is ineffective and unjust, and should be suspended so that the policy behind it can be properly and thoroughly debated. In our view, it is a matter for each MP’s own conscience, if he or she will benefit but is not open about it.

There is also the major issue of retrospectivity. We are not completely opposed to retrospective legislation, and assess our position on that on a case-by-case basis. We accept that retrospective legislation that confers a benefit or a right is not, on its face, objectionable, though we would certainly not give a blanket assent to such legislation. We have considered this bill very carefully, and because we consider section 55(1)(b) and (c) to be unjust and unworkable, we think that retrospective legislation is appropriate in this case.

We have not yet heard any compelling argument, at all, as to why an MP should not be able to pursue a dual citizenship while an MP. The discussion has been based solely on the presumption that taking on a second citizenship is inherently treasonous. The debate has raged as though, by simply being a dual citizen, an MP has renounced his or her commitment to this nation and its people. That is fundamentally untrue and smacks of old-time paranoia and old-time xenophobia.

The Greens take a consistent and rational analysis to the efficacy of the laws in this country, which is based on what is just, appropriate, and right. That is why, as I said, we work for the review of cannabis laws and section 59 of the Crimes Act. We support this bill as amending one wrong and unjust law on a spectrum of wrong and unjust laws.

I want to contribute briefly to this debate to say that I have listened to the most appalling sophistry from the opposite side of the House. The fake moral outrage of people who are incapable of contributing to a quality debate on a serious matter does this House no credit, at all. I have heard the Bible quoted on how one cannot serve two masters. Why, then, do we allow people with dual citizenship to stand for Parliament? The expression that has been given is that the Bible says we cannot serve two masters. The person who is saying that has dual citizenship. He is a British citizen as well as a New Zealand citizen. I ask why he did not put his citizenship to one side. Why did he not revoke it? Why did he not take active steps to get rid of it if he is so pure and above all of that?

The same member who quoted the Bible called people who took out citizenship of another country “traitors”. I reject that, as well. Is he a traitor to Britain because he is now a citizen of New Zealand, even though he holds dual citizenship? There is a word that, for some reason, we are not allowed to use in the House, but if the cap fits, I say to Mr Prebble, he should wear it. We are not here because an individual actively applied for citizenship of another country. That member arranged to have his Dutch citizenship restored, which, under Dutch law, meant he had always had it, since birth. People have tried to portray that as someone breaking the law, and Parliament allowing him to get away with it. That is not correct. He has not broken any law. The question we are debating here is whether we suspend the operation of the particular provisions of the Electoral Act while we sort out what Parliament really intends to do. It certainly did not intend that somebody in this situation would lose his or her seat in Parliament.

We are about to do something that is without precedent in New Zealand, which is to elect, without voters, a member of Parliament to a seat. There will be no vote, except in this House. I have been in Parliament for 13 years, which is not nearly as long as some members. But I have learned to respect its conventions and to act, even if it does not suit me, in a way that maintains its integrity, and this is the shabbiest exhibition of the abuse of parliamentary process and privilege that I have seen in that time. That is not because the issue of substance is the biggest one this Parliament has ever dealt with, but because Parliament is doing dirty work for one of its own members—that is why.

Mr Harry Duynhoven and the unnamed members of the Labour Party who are covered by this legislation are being accorded a privilege they do not deserve. That is the privilege of coming to this Parliament to ask for legislation to absolve them, retrospectively, from the consequences of their actions. No other New Zealander has that right, and nor would this Labour Government accord it to any non-Labour member of this Parliament. No way!

This issue started with Government dishonesty, when it said that this was an ancient law. Well, the ban on killing people is an ancient law; it happens to stand as completely relevant today as it did in biblical times. This law was passed by this Parliament, and was voted for by the Greens, last year. So all the mouthing-off about the moral silliness of this legislation should have been discussed by them last year—and it was not. Section 55 of the Electoral Act was amended in detail last year.

💬 Rodney Hide: What way did they vote?

I think the Greens voted for it. They know very well that if Harry Duynhoven were applying for citizenship of Iraq, this matter would have been handled completely differently—for very good reasons. So the issue started with Government dishonesty. There is a reason that this Parliament should be handling it differently, and it is to do with the privileges of sitting in this House.

There is no doubt about the facts. Harry Duynhoven disqualified himself from sitting in this Parliament on 11 June this year, under the law that this Parliament passed as the law of the people of New Zealand. There is no doubt about that. The questions are about how that issue has been handled. Here is a good question, which I want an answer to: why was a vacancy not declared, Mr Speaker? Why did Mr Speaker not declare a vacancy? What were the reasons that a vacancy was not declared, when it is now 2 months after the action that disqualified this MP? What will happen if I take an action that disqualifies me as an MP? Will Helen Clark wait 2 months? Will Mr Speaker wait 2 months?

The advice that has been given on this case from the Clerk and the Solicitor-General is unequivocal. It is unequivocal and incontestable, and what has happened? We have sat here for 2 months, and let a disqualified member sit in the House. That is a disgrace! It is an absolute disgrace, because sitting here is a privilege. It is a privilege accorded not by us but by the law of New Zealand. A member of Parliament disqualified himself, and we have let him sit here.

💬 Rodney Hide: Not us!

We did. And we let the Speaker sit there for 2 months and not declare a vacancy, when the facts were absolutely clear. I ask who was talking to whom about how to meet the needs of the Government.

The last thing this Government wants is a by-election in New Plymouth. That is the last thing it wants, and that is why it has abused the process in such an obscene manner—to avoid a by-election in New Plymouth. What do people think in New Plymouth? Helen Clark’s hypocrisy on the issue of the ownership of the beaches—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That phrase will be withdrawn.

I withdraw. How do Government members think Helen Clark’s attitude towards the ownership of the beaches will go down in New Plymouth? How many votes do they think that will get? How do they think the Prostitution Reform Bill and the civil unions bill will go down in New Plymouth? That is the underlying dirty little political secret behind this issue. Helen Clark fears deeply a by-election in New Plymouth, as Labour is becoming more vulnerable by the day. That is why Labour members are having long caucuses and beating each other up. In the public’s opinion Labour is getting done, and a New Plymouth by-election would show that to be happening.

I believe that this Parliament is owed an explanation—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a continual barrage of interjections, and I do not believe that is in order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have noted that previous speeches have been heard in almost complete silence from the Opposition and from opposing people. The member has made a reasonable point. There will now be very few interjections, at all.

I offer this challenge to the Greens. Rod Donald is a man who campaigned extensively and successfully to assert the control of Parliament over the executive. He was among those people responsible for changing the electoral system, and he deserves credit for his ability to influence public opinion in that respect. Part of the reason that that happened was that people wanted to see Parliament exert more control over the executive, but here the Greens are being party to a disgraceful episode whereby the executive is using its majority to decide who sits in Parliament.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: The Greens have gone along with it.

And the Greens have gone along with that.

💬 John Carter: The only party that has.

The Green Party is the only party that has. New Zealand First started out on the wrong side and changed, as did United Future. It is the Greens alone—who came here to change the way politics are done—who have supported the executive in passing a law to decide, retrospectively, who is allowed to sit here.

Will that retrospection be available to my colleague Nick Smith in the event that he gets a serious punishment for contempt of court, when there is legislation in front of this House, right now, that changes the law in a way that means he could not be found guilty of contempt? Will that changed law be available to him? Absolutely not! Would we ask for that? No!

💬 Simon Power: What about the Privileges Committee?

I must raise a point about the Privileges Committee. I do not think that that committee did defend the privileges of this Parliament. It was not its job to try to help Harry Duynhoven with regard to his disqualification. It had one job, which was to give an opinion as to whether there was a vacancy. The Privileges Committee has become subordinated to the partisan interests of the Labour Party, and that is a shocking indictment on this Parliament.

There is no process, no law, and no office of this country that cannot be suborned by the Labour Party in its partisan interests, and that is the worst aspect of this matter. Every aspect of our law is subject to Helen Clark’s political needs, and that is why we are totally opposed to this legislation.

I congratulate the Green speaker on that contribution earlier. It was a rational speech and took us to the issues. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

It reminded me of the words of Pierre Bourdieu, a French scholar who said —[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MATT ROBSON:—that it will be a great day for Parliaments around the world when they act like scholars and actually look at the facts.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Right through the Hon Bill English’s speech there was a constant barrage of interjections made by five or six members of the Government. It was constant. You did not raise a murmur. Matt Robson started on his speech, I interjected in a way that was rare, witty, and interesting, as did Bill English, and you shut us both down. That is wrong.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. It was wrong to speak in the second person. Members are perfectly entitled to interject in the third person.

I hold the opinion that if we had many more dual citizens in this Parliament it could lift the level.

I heard Mr English call me a parrot, and I think that sort of ad hominem attack is exactly what is wrong with much of the debate that I have heard in this Parliament in the time I have been here since 1996. I have been insulted in terms of the level of intelligence and the low general level of debate in the New Zealand Parliament. I rarely yell out to people; I try to listen to the arguments. But, frankly, if I went through the Hansard I would find that the level of debate in the New Zealand Parliament is one of the lowest that I have experienced in many Parliaments around the world. I say that having visited about 10 other Parliaments, and having been particularly impressed, when I was in the German Parliament, by the fact that its members actually spoke to the issues.

If members want to be given an argument for dual citizenship, I would say that some of those people who have argued in this debate in terms of their patriotism, and who have beaten themselves on the chest while saying how strong their feelings for New Zealand are, possibly hold only New Zealand passports. But many of the people with dual citizenship who have served in this Parliament, going back over many decades, have clearly made an enormous contribution. It is not an argument to say that because someone has dual citizenship, he or she does not give allegiance to New Zealand. That has been reflected in the very liberal attitude of this Parliament and of the country, which recognises that people can be New Zealand citizens without having to eschew their origins. There is a fallacy in the argument that if one takes a foreign passport, one is somehow or other shifting allegiance or giving it to a particular Government. Where does it state that because a person is a citizen of a country, he or she has to support the aims or objectives of a particular Government? For example, we have many American citizens in this country. They live here because they do not like the policies of the Bush administration. I have a problem with the Australian Government, because it did not like me saying, as a Minister, that it was acting as the deputy sheriff for the United States.

My criticism of previous New Zealand Governments—particularly National Governments, but also Labour administrations—was that they gave away their adherence to New Zealand’s best interests in two ways. One was through the sale of State-owned assets. As far as I know, it was New Zealand passport-holders who sold New Zealand’s public assets, and they became very rich. They gave that benefit to many New Zealand passport-holders who now live overseas—Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite are but two of the people whom New Zealand First has attacked over the years, and quite rightly. Holding a passport does not mean a person gives allegiance to a country; what one needs to actually look at is what people do in their day-to-day lives.

We are told that the Privileges Committee is a rubber stamp. I first went and saw the Privileges Committee under Paul East, a former National member for whom I had quite a high regard. It was an absolute disgrace. There was no procedure or order. The committee acted like some of the worst select committees I have seen—not good ones like the one chaired by Brian Donnelly, which I read about in the newspaper yesterday. He is very strong in his chairmanship, but some of the select committees in this Parliament have been disgraceful. The Privileges Committee that I saw under the previous National Government was like that—and talk about a rubber stamp! The issues in the Alamein Kopu case were predetermined, because Alamein Kopu was going to provide a vote for the National Party. That was a disgrace.

Two particular sayings sprang to mind when I heard this debate. One is that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels, and I think people should reflect on that. I have often found in life that those who beat their breasts about patriotism are the biggest scoundrels of all. The second saying is that this is not the crime of the century; in fact, there is no crime. Harry Duynhoven was entitled to apply for his Dutch nationality to be restored—there is no crime in that. We encourage that in New Zealand, because dual citizenship is allowed. The question then becomes one of interpretation. Having been successful in doing that, does that mean his seat should be vacated? That is not a crime either; it is a question of interpretation. Harry Duynhoven is not sitting here as a fraud. There is a difference between a crime and an action a person is entitled to take that may have consequences flowing from it.

The Privileges Committee quite properly looked at that issue. Anybody who goes to the Privileges Committee will see that I as the chair, my deputy chair, John Carter, and the committee members are determined to make the Privileges Committee act properly, in a semi-judicial way. It is not a judicial committee in the sense of being set up by the courts or by legislation, but it must act in a judicial way. We have plans to make sure that the committee will set down rules that will, particularly, allow for the principles of natural justice to be followed. It was not helpful for the committee to have Mr Richard Prebble say he had made up his mind as to what should happen before he had heard the evidence. That was not helpful at all, but, under the rules, we could do nothing about it. What the Privileges Committee did was to look first at the narrow question, and, by seven to three members, it said, yes, it looked as though there was a vacancy.

I was one of those members, so at that stage I was neither a parrot nor a lapdog, if that is the next ad hominem insult to be thrown at me. I acted in accordance with what I believed, having looked at the matter. The three members who voted against that were entitled to take a fair, large, and liberal interpretation. That shows the difficulty we had, because this matter has thrown up many unanswered questions, and that meant we had serious matters to argue for.

This bill before us now gives us the space to clear up the ambiguities and the mess. It is a sensible step to take.

That last speech was extraordinary. There stood the chairman of the Privileges Committee, who admitted that the seat was vacant as at 11 July this year. That was a clear statement by the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House. It was advice that the Speaker would have had, yet today we are participating in what has to be a breach of our constitution—that is, this Parliament is overriding the proper rule of law, which is that if there is a vacancy, there must be a by-election. It is pretty plain and pretty straightforward, and it is what would happen in Australia and other democracies.

I have to ask why it is not happening here. Surely members would have to agree that it is a privilege to be in this House, and the only way one can get here is to be voted in by the people. If a person breaches the Act and that leads to a vacancy, then the consequences of that are clear, and they are laid down in our Electoral Act—there is a by-election. That is what should be happening in this case.

The Government has a curious argument: he has a large majority, therefore why bother? Well, one might say that if that were true, the Government would be welcoming a by-election, but it is not. There are a number of possible explanations. First, the Government is scared of a by-election because it would have to account publicly for various policies. There is another explanation on top of that, and it is that there is another member of Parliament in the Labour Party who is also in breach, and we could have more than one by-election.

One might say that that is the consequence—the Act has been breached and there will be more than one by-election. But what if it is a list member? What if it is a senior member of the Labour Party who is a list member? In that case, of course, there would not be a by-election. What would happen if that person were simply kicked out of Parliament, their seat became vacant, and the next person on the list came into Parliament?

Today the Government has completely failed to answer the very reasonable question that has been put to it by speakers from various parties—namely, why is this legislation so broad and extensive that it covers not just Mr Duynhoven but some other person?

💬 John Carter: They’ll get found out.

My suspicion is that it is not just a person who needs a by-election, but one who is a list member. For that person, that is the end of the line. He or she is out of Parliament, and the next person comes in. If that is the case, then the Government has a clear obligation—in justice and in adherence to the constitution—to confess to that reality. It should say who that person is, and be truly honest and upfront as to why this retrospective legislation is being designed to protect someone who is quite probably a list member of Parliament. At least then we would know why this legislation has been drafted in that way. The Government has been given every opportunity to name that person. Each party member of the Privileges Committee was asked to go back to their whips, who would put the informal question to each of their members—

💬 John Carter: Which is normal tradition.

I am informed by a member far more senior than myself in the ways of this House that that is normal tradition. Each party went back to the Privileges Committee and said that it did not include a member of its party. One party did not do that, could not do that, and that was the Labour Party. Dr Cullen, the Leader of the House, was asked that question specifically. I was sitting in the Privileges Committee and heard Mr Prebble challenge Dr Cullen on that very point. There was no answer at all. Today in this House we have asked and asked members and whips which member was infringing, and there has been silence throughout.

I am deeply offended that we in this Parliament have been asked to partake in a charade, a travesty of our constitution, where we will do two things that are normally seen as fundamentally reprehensible. One is to pass retrospective legislation, which is normally seen as reprehensible, particularly so when it deals with a constitutional issue. Surely, the Government can see that.

The second issue seems to be that we are being asked to participate in an act of dishonesty to assist a member of the Labour Party—quite possibly a senior list member, and quite possibly a member of the executive. I do not hear any denial of that statement from that side, or from Cabinet. Various members of my party have just raised the question of who it could possibly be.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Me.

The member is not a list member.

It behoves the Government to come clean. The integrity of this place behoves it to be accountable to and honest with the citizens of New Zealand.

I close on the issue I raised right from the beginning. It is a privilege to be in this Parliament. None of us have to be here; we all chose to stand for election to represent the interests of New Zealanders. I heard a completely specious and false argument from the previous speaker, Mr Robson, that somehow it is a good thing to be a dual citizen. Being a member of Parliament is a voluntary action, and it seems to me that whilst he or she is a member of Parliament, his or her responsibility is to represent the interests of the citizens of New Zealand, their electors only, and no other. Surely, taking out a foreign passport whilst one is a member of Parliament is an infringement of that principle. Today we are participating in a travesty of our constitution. I for one say that is wrong, and that is why this party and other parties in this Parliament will vote against this legislation.