Robson Matt: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Robson Matt: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20134] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is no surprise now that the Progressive Party has two positions on this legislation. At our national executive we discussed this legislation and after a very lengthy discussion on all the issues we considered important it was agreed that the two members of Parliament could vote in different ways. But although we differ in our vote on this debate and although there has been debate within the growing membership of the Progressives on what position to take we agree that we want migrants to continue to be welcomed by all New Zealanders as they are in the process of becoming New Zealanders themselves. We agree that we want immigration to continue with the emphasis on skilled and trained future citizens. We agree on our Progressive policy of supporting active measures to welcome migrants in order to minimise social and political division and of assisting with settlement and integration. And we agree that New Zealand must protect all its people from bigotry and racism. 
My fear has been that this legislation sends two distinct messages to those who have migrated to New Zealand. The citizenship provisions state to all migrants that we do not trust them so 2 more years will be added to their probationary period for citizenship even despite the fact that they have passed a rigorous test to enter New Zealand in the first place. The provisions also set up two types of immigrants: those with the favoured First World passports and those who are from countries that have restricted travel rights throughout the world. That causes division within New Zealand—an unnecessary division. 
In the passport provisions this legislation states to every New Zealander that he or she can be deprived of the right to travel even though he or she has not been charged or convicted of any crime in open court. The use of a person’s passport will no longer be an automatic democratic right if the provision that was in clause 27 of the original Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill is passed. That democratic right was previously transgressed only if a person was convicted of a crime or was before the court on a criminal charge. If the Security Intelligence Service or the police believe a person is a threat to New Zealand’s international or economic well-being then by administrative action through the Minister of Internal Affairs that person’s passport or travel documents will be withdrawn. I ask the union movement of New Zealand to take note of that because it has usually been in the forefront of the defence of democratic rights as union members are often the target of reactionary measures. 
I would call that clause the “Ahmed Zaoui clause” because surely we should have learnt from the debacle in that case that if we take away democratic rights in the case of one person then we are likely to use that power in the case of another person irrespective of our understanding of the particular issue or of the person so held in a detention centre. I am sure that many New Zealanders who are appalled at the lack of natural justice through the misuse of classified information—on the grounds of national security—to deny Ahmed Zaoui fair treatment will call this provision in this legislation the “Ahmed Zaoui clause”. It introduces a dangerous anti-democratic practice into New Zealand. Citizens will be punished not for what is proven against them by the State in open court with the protection of being innocent until proven guilty and with all rights of natural justice preserved but through an administrative procedure where they must prove their innocence. If members take the time to refer to the legislation they will see that the allegations for which a passport can be withdrawn are very serious: terrorist activity proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and activities that are destructive to the whole New Zealand economy. Yet despite that only the person’s passport is to be taken and the person who is so dangerous is not even charged under this particular law. 
The category of classified security information under this legislation will now extend to information held by the police—not just by the Security Intelligence Service but by the police. It is no wonder that the responsible Ministers did not consult any community groups or any groups that would normally be consulted on legislation like this. When the New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils representing hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders came before the Government Administration Committee its representatives said that they had not been consulted on the drafting of this legislation. What was the Minister for Ethnic Affairs doing with regard to this legislation which actually affects people whom he is charged with representing? What was the Minister of Immigration doing by not looking at the many migrant associations in New Zealand and asking how this legislation would affect their members? What was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs doing by not consulting the Pacific community on the many measures that will affect it in this legislation? Those Ministers did not do their job as Ministers on this legislation and they did not do their job as representatives of a Labour movement that has fought for the maintenance and extension of democratic rights. That is a tragedy for the New Zealand labour movement. 
If in one move we attack the rule of law and throw aside the provision in article 13 of the United Nations declaration on human rights and in section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which guarantee the right to leave and return to one’s own country what other measures can we then say we will take because we have set that dangerous precedent? And in relation to the people who come to New Zealand and who are often welcomed in great ceremonies—many members of Parliament go to the events they hold and want their votes—I ask why we are putting further hurdles in their way after they have already surmounted the costly barriers in place to come to New Zealand? It is time to draw a line against measures that deliver collective punishments against all migrants here and against measures that misuse the concern about terrorism to introduce a power to the Security Intelligence Service and the police that strikes at the very heart of the rule of law and the right to natural justice. 
It is with sadness that I have to vote against this legislation put forward by Labour Party colleagues. I make it clear of course that I am 100 percent in support of any measures taken by a democratic society like our own in defensive action against any potential physical threat to any of its citizens. But I think we have perhaps an unconscious irony here. Many of the migrants who have come to New Zealand have come here because it is a democratic country. They wanted to leave countries where this type of practice is normal and where every police officer has more power in his or her—usually his—little finger than the Prime Minister of New Zealand. And now those migrants have measures in place that must remind them of the measures that are commonplace in the repressive societies they have left. 
There was an issue recently of foreign nationals who tried to get hold of New Zealand passports—the Israeli spies. They were caught. The current law caught them. The current law provides for prison sentences for people who give false testimony such as signing testimonials claiming that person X is who that person says he or she is when applying to renew a passport. I note that a New Zealand national—a doctor—did sign a form stating that the New Zealand national knew person X when the New Zealand national did not know that person. But we have laws to stop that type of passport fraud. Our laws are strong—and so they should be—but they also contain the guarantees that justice will be done and that a person so charged by the State will have all rights afforded to him or her. We have strong national homeland security laws now but we are undermining those with an anti-democratic set of procedures. 
New Zealand is the furthest away nation in the world from the major markets so it is already competing at a disadvantage caused by its distance from those markets in the global competition to attract skilled new settlers to our shores. This legislation which does not practically add to or subtract from our security does have one effect: it will put New Zealand at a further unnecessary disadvantage in the competition to attract skilled people to our shores. In my opinion the bill simply states to potential skilled immigrants that 2 more years will be added to their probationary period for citizenship. It will place unnecessary hurdles in the path of those who would consider New Zealand as their potential home. In order to be granted the right of residence in New Zealand at the moment all applicants undergo rigorous thorough and lengthy checks. It is expensive. They have to prove they are of good character and prove their medical fitness and they have to fit the particular category under which they have applied. It is not easy; New Zealand is not a soft touch. The process is not quick yet we are putting in place further unnecessary hurdles. 
This law states to me that New Zealand is saying to potential immigrants that yes they have spent many years in overcoming the hurdles but under the provision in clause 8 of the original Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill we will add another 2 years before they can call themselves Kiwis. What on earth will be found out about a resident in 5 years—which becomes 6 years while the resident is waiting for a decision on the application—that was not available in 3 years or in many cases more than 3 years in the case of a person who was in New Zealand before that person was even granted residence? Does membership of al-Qaeda surface only in the fourth year of a person’s residence? 
I ask the House even at this last hour to consider voting against this legislation.