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:7744] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very important and very interesting debate. It has been brought about by the actions of a member of the Labour Party who according to the advice given to the Privileges Committee and therefore this House by the Solicitor-General has done concurred in or adopted an act whereby he became a subject or citizen of a foreign State or power or became entitled to rights privileges or immunities of a subject or citizen of any foreign State or power. That is the clear advice of the Solicitor-General who analysed the position as outlined on the facts of Mr Duynhoven’s case and based on the facts supplied by Mr Duynhoven. Page 2 of his report states and I quote: “Applying the analysis just outlined to the facts of Mr Duynhoven’s case the position is as follows: 1. Mr Duynhoven was not a Dutch national when he was elected to Parliament in 2002. 2. In order to become a Dutch national Mr Duynhoven had to take certain actions within a defined time frame. If he did not take that action Mr Duynhoven would have lost the opportunity to acquire Dutch nationality. 3. After and because Mr Duynhoven took the necessary action—that is filing this completed application on 11 June 2003—he became a Dutch national with retrospective effect.” Paragraph 5 states: “On this analysis it seems clear that Mr Duynhoven’s act of filling his completed application created a vacancy within the terms of section 55(1)(c).” That is an unequivocal clear statement with no ambiguity about it on the facts supplied by Mr Duynhoven. 
On the face of it looking again at section 129 of the Act one would say that there were clear grounds for a decision being made without delay but that is not a matter for me to decide and I leave it at that point. 
The Solicitor-General advised us and New Zealand First does not hold the views of the Solicitor-General very strongly and that point has been made by the leader of this party. However the statement has been made and it has been accepted by the select committee and I believe that those views have been accepted unanimously and that includes New Zealand First in the final analysis. 
In this case New Zealand First had offered the Labour Party its support in allowing Harry Duynhoven to retain his seat on a retrospective legislation basis. We said to the New Zealand Labour Party that Harry was a good bloke and we were pretty sure he would have done this absolutely without any malice by accident and in a blameless way. It is clear that all those views apply to Harry Duynhoven. We were and still are ready to support an Act that will reinstate Harry Duynhoven to this Parliament and apply to section 55(1)(c). However in front of us is a breach of that offer made by New Zealand First to the minority Labour Government. We gave it an inch and it took a yard. We offered to help it. It has thrown back our offer in our face slapped us in the face and said “You can offer these things but we’ll do what we like and you don’t count.” We made the offer and obviously it has not been accepted and the Government is now saying that the Act should apply not only to Harry Duynhoven but to anybody else who may have come within the sphere of section 55(1)(c). 
Furthermore—and this does not even apply to Harry Duynhoven because he did not swear allegiance to another power; he only filled out an application form to have his Dutch citizenship restored—the Government is saying that despite the fact that Harry Duynhoven did not swear allegiance to anybody else it will amend section 55(1)(b) of the Act as well. That section states that 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;”. The Labour Party is saying that despite the fact that Harry Duynhoven did not do that it will amend the legislation for this term of Parliament so that it applies not only to Harry Duynhoven but to anyone else who may have applied for Dutch or British citizenship—not even Dutch citizenship because usually to get citizenship one has to swear allegiance. Harry Duynhoven just filled out a form. But in addition to those just filling out a form this legislation will apply to people who have sworn an oath or allegiance to another foreign power. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Why would they want to do that? 
DAIL JONES 
: Exactly. One does have to ask why go beyond what Harry Duynhoven has done? I am a lawyer. I am automatically suspicious. I get paid for being suspicious. I have won many many court cases—unlike I am told Sir Geoffrey Palmer with whom I was compared. There is no comparison between me and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I win court cases. I am told that Sir Geoffrey Palmer only loses them. That is why I was able to continue— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: But he charges a lot more. 
DAIL JONES 
: He does charge a lot more. That is why he is probably the better lawyer as far as the public is concerned. As far as this particular case is concerned who in the Labour Party is being protected here? No one in New Zealand First is being protected by this legislation. I have spoken to members and I have looked at passports to see whether they have been renewed. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Check the American Embassy. 
DAIL JONES 
: I have looked at the passport. Members know that when a passport is renewed the top right-hand corner is ripped off. I have seen the passport. That has not been done so no passport has been renewed. Mr Carter can try. I am concerned about Mr Carter’s comment when he asked whether I had rung the American Embassy. I am concerned about whether the Labour Party has been colluding with the United States Government to find out the allegiances of New Zealand members of Parliament. Mr Carter laughs and says they are his friends. Has the American Ambassador been contacted by the New Zealand Labour Party to find out whether New Zealand members of Parliament have been taking any actions? I find that to be a gross abuse of the Government’s power. I believe that it is a breach of the Privacy Act at the very least. I ask the American Ambassador in this House to report to New Zealand First and perhaps even Mr Speaker on what collusion there is between this Labour Government and the American Ambassador. That point has been put to me not just by Mr Carter but also by Mr Cullen making accusations about a New Zealand First member of Parliament on the basis of having been in collusion with the American Government and the American Embassy. I am sure that the American Ambassador will reply having made an investigation in his department on what collusion there is between Labour Ministers the American Ambassador and his staff. As a Parliament we need to know what is happening. 
A lot has been said about how far this legislation goes back and Dr Cullen jumped up and down about it going back to 1701. Really if we want to take this legislation back to its source we might even go back to 1215 because this legislation is all about our countrymen judging us and our countrymen being the people who should be in Parliament with us. As we know the Magna Carta was all about being judged by one’s peers. This legislation is all about being judged by one’s peers and being governed by one’s peers. That is what the Magna Carta was about. I think it is a real red-herring smokescreen to go back to 1852 1701 the peninsula war in the late 18th early 19th centuries—we could go back to the Magna Carta if we liked. We could probably go back to Roman law if we wished. 
The point is that this Act was considered in 1981. I understand that this Act was considered as recently as 10 if not 3 years ago. This Act is relatively new on our statute book. It is relatively new legislation and Harry Duynhoven broke it. New Zealand First is most concerned that the Labour Party has slapped us in the face. I tell the people of New Plymouth that New Zealand First thanks them for all the party votes it got in the last election. We did extremely well in New Plymouth at the last election. We are only too pleased to help Harry Duynhoven. He has done a good job in New Plymouth and we do not want the taxpayer to go to the expense of a by-election. But if this minority Labour Government is not interested in taking up New Zealand First’s genuine offer well then I am sorry but what else can we do but take the view that the Labour Party is hiding someone and we want to know just who the guilty person is.