Hudson Brett: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionHudson Brett: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 08 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:1. Text is subject to correction.]BRETT HUDSON (National):It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak on this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). It is almost like being at an evangelists’ review or reunion here such is the enthusiasm across both sides of the House for this bill and what it will do.I was actually a bit slow to rise because I was hoping the member opposite David Cunliffe was going to carry on for a bit longer with his impassioned speaking on behalf of this bill. I must note though that he did make a point that my colleague who spoke before him Sarah Dowie had made perhaps the wrong judgment on just how important this bill is. But to help Mr Cunliffe—a man who after all has spent a rather large chunk of his life in this place—I will point out to him that even when you have served for the amount of time that he has in this House you can still get a little bit of incorrect understanding of legislation and change.Mr Cunliffe when the refugees arrive in New Zealand they will not be handed 10-year passports but what they will get under this amendment bill is refugee travel documents that will have a validity period moving from 2 years to 5 years because that aligns to the residency requirement in order for them to apply for and receive New Zealand citizenship. So I will just help Mr Cunliffe to understand the bill a little better by pointing that out.The fundamental part of this amendment bill the one that has captured if we can use that term the public’s imagination—it certainly has got broad support outside of this House I would wager as well as inside—is the return to a 10-year validity period. It is a wonderful thing to be here and to be part of a united House in this case and a united Parliament making a change that the public are very very pleased to see.Nowhere more did we see it than in the submissions that we received. In fact the chair of the Government Administration Committee made an interesting observation. The Hon Ruth Dyson pointed out that Kiwis have this thing that when they broadly agree with a change or a bill going through a select committee they do not make submissions. And when they do make submissions that are in favour they do not actually want to appear to talk in favour of their submission.Such was the case here. I think we received around 20 submissions and no one not a single submitter—they were all basically in favour—actually wanted to appear in front of the select committee to argue strongly in favour. So we can bear that in mind the next time Opposition members start talking to us about the number of submissions that are opposed to a Government measure—that in their own words the many many in favour just do not bother submitting. So I will keep that one filed away.It is very very good indeed to be a part of making something that the public very much want and very much support. I will cover just a couple of other things that this bill will do because I think they are as important—perhaps not as important in the minds of the general public as the return to 10-year validity but they are important. As well as increasing the validity of refugee travel documents to align to the New Zealand residency requirement period the bill reduces actually the validity period of certificates of identity from 4 years down to a maximum of 2 years. These are documents that are issued to non - New Zealand citizens who cannot obtain travel documents from their home countries.There is some concern about some people who fall into this category because of the difficulty of establishing bona fides as to their identity and their validity. So it is a sensible thing to cap the validity period for travel documents in that category and that is a good change the bill will make. But one thing it will do particularly around that area of proof of identity and certainty of bona fides—we know that the New Zealand passport is one of the most desirable in the world. It is the eighth most desirable in the world according to Arton Capital which created a passport index—a passport power type ranking. We are ahead of Australia and that will come as no surprise to anyone in this House. We are behind a few other countries but we are well up with the very very best.Of course the flip side of that is that if you have got a passport that is so desirable it makes it a very very attractive target for those who would like to misuse it—to forge it or to misuse it inappropriately. One of the changes that this amendment bill will bring about is that it will allow an offence of false representation to be applied extraterritorially. It seems on the face of it an odd situation exists today that you commit a crime if you make a false representation as to identity within New Zealand in seeking to obtain a New Zealand passport but if you make that same false representation outside of New Zealand the power is not there to actually take a court proceeding against you at least not under New Zealand jurisdiction. I think that is a very very sensible change to bring about in this bill.When we had the first reading debate I focused my contribution a great deal on why we had come to the position that is in fact the current state—a 5-year validity. It was because of all of the security requirements the heightened security concerns around the world post - September 11 2001 and some changes that US legislation had effectively enforced in order for us to maintain our visa-free waiver status. So there were very very strong reasons why we had to and did create the first change to move to a 5-year validity.The select committee and the Government in putting the legislation forward looked very closely at ensuring that we could move back to a 10-year period and have confidence in the security and the technology behind our passports to make sure that we would not unduly compromise New Zealand or New Zealand’s standing by introducing great risks by doubling the validity period. We heard a lot from the officials on this. It gave us on the select committee great confidence. I think the New Zealand public has confidence and they certainly want to return to a 10-year validity period. I commend this bill to the House.