Harry’s stuff-up
July 27th, 2003 at 6:26 pm by David FarrarNew Plymouth MP Harry Duynhoven may have caused his seat in Parliament to become vacant due to his application to restore his Dutch citizenship.
The NZ Herald reports how the Privileges Committee is seeking legal advice on whether Duynhoven’s actions breached Section 55(1) of the Electoral Act 1993, specifically Paragraph (c) which states “If he or she does or concurs in or adopts any act whereby he or she may become a subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power, or entitled to the rights, privileges, or immunities of a subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power”
The Speaker has the responsibility under Section 129(1) to determine if a seat is vacant and I suspect that he will very shortly have to conclude Duynhoven’s seat is vacant. In fact one can argue he should have done so some time ago.
There has been some talk about retrospective legislative to stop the vacancy and a by-election, arguing that this is an obscure 150 year old clause. However it is not. The Electoral Act was totally reviewed and passed in 1993 – after Duynhoven first entered Parliament and most MPs know the sections on what causes a vacancy very well.
There is some talk of the Government forcing through Parliament under urgency, legislation to allow Duynhoven to retain his seat. This would be an incredibly bad thing to do, for many reasons.
1) Retrospective legislation is bad at the best of times, but retrospective legislation passed by Parliament for the sole purpose of benefiting a current MP reeks of third world status.
2) Australia has had the same issue with Jackie Kelly and they had a by-election rather than gerrymander the law.
3) While some may regard a by-election as a waste of time, with the result in no doubt, it is the height of arrogance for a Parliament to assume to know how the people will vote in any particular situation, and legislate to avoid an election.
So as much as I personally would rather not have a by-election in New Plymouth, I think Parliament has no choice but to let the law take its course. MPs should not be above the law, and itwould be manifestly unfair for an MP to escape the consequences of his own actions just because he has mates who can change the law
No tag for this post.
July 28th, 2003 at 8:19 am
Arguably, Harry’s application was not so much to gain foreign citizenship, but to to regain his Dutch citizenship to which he was always entitled. It is true that for a while, the Dutch frowned on dual citizenship, but their recent enactment will apparently have retrospective effect. I fail to see how his situation is any different to the number of other parliamentarians who variously hold British or Australian citizenship.
Good blog, by the way.
Vote:July 29th, 2003 at 8:21 am
The debate as I see it isn’t whether the law is a sensible one (but note that Parliament left it in there last year when amending this clause indicating there is merit in having it) but whether Harry broke the law and if so should Parliament pass retrospective legislation.
I think retrospective legislation affecting the Electoral Act is not just the thin end of the wedge but a long way down the slippery slope also. The law has to apply equally to everyone.
Well my 2c worth again anyway.
Vote:July 29th, 2003 at 10:34 am
Just a thought.
Vote:Should Dynhoven be vacated. Would that make his ‘yes’ vote on the prostitution reform bill null in void?
July 29th, 2003 at 10:42 am
My understanding is that it would not, but someone could take a case to court arguing the opposite.
Section 55 does state the seat becomes vacant upon the act of becoming a citizen of another country, but as far as I know there is no provision for votes accepted by Parliament to be later changed except by leave of the House.
Vote:July 29th, 2003 at 10:49 am
David, excellent website. Well-written pieces.
Cheers,
Jamie
Vote:July 30th, 2003 at 1:33 am
To get into the crude electoral poltics of it, why didn’t Harry resign instead of the ghastly performance before the Privileges Committee that was on One News Tonight? And what does it cost to get Sir Geoffrey (“call me God”) Palmer out of bed these days?
The man has a five figure majority – and I’ve not heard anyone seriously argue he’s in real danger of losing the seat in a by-election he’s eligible to contest. It is, however, a no-brainer that he would get a lot of positive media if he said, “OK, it might be a silly technicality but it’s still the law. A body of law, incidentally, that has helped give this country an enviable history of corruption-free elections. No legislator can ever hold himself to be above that law.”
An enterprising opposition MP might also like to point out that a couple of thousand people recently woke up to discover their residency applications weren’t worth the paper they were written on.
Vote: