Jones Dail: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14204] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 We have had two very interesting speeches on the Electoral Commission aspect of this legislation and the amendments to the Broadcasting Act. I wish to speak to Part 1. I do not wish to refer to the matter that took place last year other than to show how it is relevant to what is happening today. 
One of the issues that arose last year was the advice of the Crown Solicitor expressing concern about a member of Parliament renewing a passport or travel document after becoming a member of Parliament and the uncertainty relating to whether that placed that member of Parliament’s position in this House in jeopardy. The Government has introduced this bill that now contains a clause inserting new section 55AA which states: “Despite section 55(1)(b) and (c) the seat of a member of Parliament does not become vacant by reason only of the member—(b) renewing a passport or travel document that was issued to him or her by a foreign State or Power before the member took office.” 
If at the time this Act was first passed—and we go back many years—members of this House thought that renewing a passport or travel document was something that should debar one from being a member of Parliament was that a good idea and should it be continued rather than revoked? I just raise that point and hope we will get submissions on it because I believe that once one becomes a member of the Parliament of New Zealand one should be travelling only on a New Zealand passport. That member should not renew any other passport and should not be travelling on any other travel document. Either one is loyal to this place or one is not. 
It is my view that we set the standard. I have indicated that we set a standard in other areas and here we are setting a standard too. It is the standard we set as the leaders of this country—one that says we can put our nationality on our sleeves and just change our nationality as we wish. Today we could be New Zealanders tomorrow we could be any other nationality that might apply to this House. I am not picking on anyone; I am saying everyone in general and it includes I suspect members of all parties. I can have the nationality of more than one country but since I became an adult I have only ever had a New Zealand passport and I have only ever travelled on a New Zealand passport. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Same here. 
DAIL JONES 
: I ask that member and other members that if they agree with me why do we have new section 55AA(b) in this bill? Why do we not have a clause that says that if one renews another country’s passport or travels on another country’s travel document while a member of this Parliament then that member has placed his or her position in this House in jeopardy and he or she should resign. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Let’s get the facts right—neither of those things apply. 
DAIL JONES 
: No I am not attacking the member at all. I am just making— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Of course he is! 
DAIL JONES 
: I am not attacking that other member. I wish he were not in the House today and was perhaps watching a replay on television because this situation could apply to me. I am saying that we are members of this Parliament we set a standard as New Zealand citizens we always travel on a New Zealand passport we never renew any other passport—or we decide that we do not want to be members here. 
An interesting situation is now developing in New Zealand. The other day I was having a discussion at a soccer club over a few drinks after the game. One of the people in the conversation born and bred here and very proud of being a New Zealander was making comments about being a New Zealander and suchlike. Someone else chirped up and said he had come here 30 years ago and always travelled on his former country’s passport. There was no way that he was going to change but he was going to tell me as a member of Parliament how this country should be run. The New Zealander looked at this other person and said: “If you’re not going to be a New Zealander you shouldn’t be telling people how to run this country even if you have been here 30 years paid taxes and will get superannuation and everything else as well.” 
What I am asking is this: have we reached that stage of maturity in New Zealand where people should start making decisions as to whether they are New Zealanders first and foremost? Should not this House be setting the standard and saying that we are New Zealanders first and foremost we do not want to travel on other countries’ passports and we do not want to renew another country’s passport while we are representing this country in the most important way possible? So I hope we will get submissions on that clause. 
The other clause that interests me is clause 5(1)(b) which has an interesting little change. Currently the Act states in section 55(1): “The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant … if he or she takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to any foreign Prince or Power”—which is where the passport one came in as well. But the amendment now goes on to add “whether required on appointment to an office or otherwise;”. 
I am just wondering why we have that and whether it applies to people who might be consorts—to any person who might be the consort for Monaco or somewhere else like that. I wonder whether that particular person has noticed those few words being added in and whether if this bill is passed in the form it is now he or she will have to resign that position. I will be interested to hear submissions on that matter possibly from that member who is also a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Whether he has an interest in the matter I am not sure but he may have to remove himself from the committee. I am not being mischievous but just stating the facts as I see them. I draw this matter to the attention of that member and I look forward to seeing what this part of the bill actually means.