REVOCATION OF NATURALISATION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 263, 31 July 1920, Page 7

REVOCATION OF NATURALISATION

Sir—l take it that under the amondment of the above Bill now before tho House it is proposed to confer the power of evacuation to the executive without giving the subject the chanco of trial or defence. H«s it ever occurred to the framcrs of this Bill that such a clause completely and most effectively destroys the whole object of letters of naturalisation. The concluding sentence of this document reads as follows: ". . . . and that he, tho said Blank, shall hereafter have and enjoy all the right's and capacities which a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom can enjoy or transmit within tho Dominion of New Zealand."' During a war such as we have experienced a measure such as above is certainly justified, although even then, a person should have the right of defence either before a judicial or military tribunal. There can certainly ba no excuse to carry on such a drastic measure during a time of peace Without giving • the accused person even an- opportunity of defence before a properly constituted judicial tribunal. Surely such a measure is contrary to all British fair play and justice, and entirely defeats the object of naturalisation, _ I doubt whether durin? all the years New Zealand enjoyed a Constitution a ease ever arose whore a revocation of naturalisation was felt to be necessary. Personally I have the highest esteem and confidence in the present executive, but is it just and right to give tho power to any man or set of men to revoke a rudit lieid sacred by all nations 6ince" timo immemorial without trial or defence.— I ,am, etc., NATURALISED.