Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7785] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 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. 
DAIL JONES 
: 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. 
DAIL JONES 
: —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.