Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20129] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I realise that people are restless and that they want to move away from this debate but I do now know how many people realise the seriousness of the issue. We are facing a fundamental issue of whether we reverse the State’s ability to take a passport away from somebody and return to the established rules of natural justice—that is that the State has to prove its assertion beyond reasonable doubt. If members had had any debate in their caucuses on this issue and if anyone had had the courage to stand up and say that this is a fundamental issue that was won by a battle for democratic rights—particularly in the Labour Party—they would know they are giving away those rights. Those members who were in the union movement should realise that the right to picket the right to free speech the right not to be red-baited the right not to have regulations passed as in the waterfront legislation are rights that were won through legislation—and they are giving that away. 
According to this legislation the Minister can take a passport away if a “person intends to engage in or facilitate—(i) a terrorist act …; or (ii) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; or (iii) any unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage …”. Would one not think there was room there to charge somebody under our criminal legislation? Does anyone think there is not? Then those are very serious actions. What is wrong with using the established procedure which is that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt? That is what is at stake here. 
In this Parliament when such legislation was brought in and I was sitting there on the Opposition benches it was Labour Party members who got up and said: “This reverses the onus of proof. This is a dangerous precedent.” That is what we had with the Immigration Act. I stood alongside Lianne Dalziel when she warned the then National Government of the dangers that changes to the immigration procedure brought to the Immigration Act. Those changes meant that the State could detain somebody on national security grounds without giving the reasons. She stood there and the Labour Party voted against it. 
When this type of measure was brought in by a conservative Government Labour people recognised the danger. This too is dangerous legislation. This is a move away from democratic rights that were won. 
Members want to go home. They want to get the bill through under urgency and more the pity because just like the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 which was used in the 1951 waterfront lockout against the working people of New Zealand and against democratic rights this bill will sit waiting to be used just as all the legislation brought in in many countries during the cold war was used in the same way. 
Peter Brown talks about loyalty. Have we not heard that before—when there is an anti-democratic measure those who speak out against anti-democratic measures are then slandered? I ask members to give due consideration to the amendments because I recognise that members have not thought about or analysed this and they are going to vote for this repressive legislation. But I ask them for goodness’ sake to put some controls on a Minister of Internal Affairs who will be able to use this legislation to withdraw one’s democratic right to be able to defend oneself and have the State justify what it does rather than the individual having to go to the High Court in an atmosphere of repression and under a set of procedures where one cannot get to the reasons because they are hidden under the blanket of security concerns. 
I ask members to think about Justice Glazebrook in the Court of Appeal. She stated in the Zaoui case when the court was being asked by the Crown to deny human rights that security concerns are not a blanket to deny human rights. I ask members to consider putting at least one halter on this particular set of procedures and at least require the Minister to have more strict reporting procedures for this House. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to add to section 4A the following new subsections: 
(5)The Minister must prepare in respect of each calendar year a report (including if appropriate a nil report) setting out— 
(a)The number of cases in which the Minister refuses to issue a passport; and 
(b)The number of cases where the Minister revokes a decision; and 
(c)The number of cases in which the Minister applies to a Judge of the High Court for an order to extend the period during which the person is not entitled to obtain a New Zealand passport; and 
(d)The outcomes of the applications if any made by the Minister to a Judge of the High Court. 
(6)The Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives not later than 20 sitting days after the end of the calendar year to which the report relates. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to add to section 8A the following new subsections: 
(5)The Minister must prepare in respect of each calendar year a report (including if appropriate a nil report) setting out— 
(a)The number of cases in which the Minister recalls cancels or retains any New Zealand passport; and 
(b)The number of cases where the Minister revokes a decision; and 
(c)The number of cases in which the Minister applies to a Judge of the High Court for an order to extend the period during which the person is not entitled to obtain a New Zealand passport; and 
(d)The outcomes of the applications if any made by the Minister to a Judge of the High Court. 
(6)The Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives not later than 20 sitting days after the end of the calendar year to which the report relates. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.