Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePassports Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4571. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)First ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate moment I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 October 2015. This is a concise but important bill that will ultimately help many New Zealand citizens. It contains measures that are designed to make passport services more convenient for travellers and it modernises the Passports Act 1992 to reflect the increasingly electronic nature of passport services.The main feature of this bill is that it increases the validity period of the adult New Zealand passport to 10 years. This addresses a common concern raised about the current validity period of the New Zealand passport in that when matched by passports issued by comparable countries our passport is valid for a shorter period. This was an issue considered carefully by the Government Administration Committee last year before it recommended a review of the passport validity period. New Zealanders are well known for their love of travel and being as geographically isolated as we are the passport is an essential document for many people for both business and holiday purposes. It is simply inconvenient having to renew a passport more frequently than in many other countries.The validity period was originally reduced from 10 years to 5 years in 2005 against a background of security concerns at that time. The New Zealand passport was not considered then to be a sufficiently secure document so in order to reduce its attractiveness to counterfeiters there was a need to ensure that the passport was in circulation for a limited time and that its security features were improved. Reducing the validity period addressed some of those risks and the launch of the e-passport which introduced an electronic chip containing biometric information about the passport holder enhanced the passport’s security.Since 2005 there has been significant investment in passport security both for the security of the book itself and of the issuing processes. The book has been updated a number of times and now contains many effective security features alongside the biometric chip. Other countries have updated the security in their passports in recent years and have also been confident enough to increase the validity periods of their passports to provide greater convenience to travellers. I believe New Zealand should now do the same.We have a passport that is considered to be amongst the best in the world. However security challenges still exist. The international security situation is constantly changing and remains volatile. Therefore in considering a change to the passport validity period the Government has sought to ensure that passport security would not be compromised. That is why in August last year I announced an independent review of New Zealand’s passport security settings. That review and subsequent work has carefully considered the relevant issues and involved the border and law enforcement agencies in that process. We are now confident that the security risks involved in moving to a longer validity period can be mitigated.This change to the passport validity period applies only to adult passports which are issued to individuals who are at least 16 years of age. Children’s passports will still have a 5-year validity period in line with international convention which recognises that younger people’s appearances change more quickly.In addition to changing the maximum validity period for adult passports the bill will also change the validity periods of other travel documents. This includes extending the validity period of refugee travel documents from 2 years to 5 years. That brings them in line with the length of the residency period required before refugees can apply for New Zealand citizenship and obtain a New Zealand passport.The bill reduces the maximum validity period of certificates of identity from 4 years to 2 years. These travel documents are issued only to non-New Zealand citizens who cannot get travel documents from their own countries. As we may not have full access to these individuals’ identity information the majority of certificates of identity are issued for 1 year only so it is therefore appropriate to amend the Act to reflect this reality and the greater security concerns around those travel documents.In addition to changing the validity period of travel documents other changes in this bill are designed to ensure that New Zealand’s passport services are supported by up-to-date legislation. The bill does this by removing outdated provisions that are inconsistent with modern security and operational practice. For security reasons passports and other travel documents that expire or need to be changed because their visa pages are full are now replaced by completely new documents. The original documents are not amended in any way. Therefore the current provisions in the Act which enable the expiry dates of passports to be extended and additional visa pages to be inserted are redundant and are being removed.In a similar vein the bill also removes references in the Passports Act to the reissuing of travel documents. This change reflects the fact that new travel documents with updated identity details for the document holder replace any previous document. The bill also provides clear legislative authority for best practice document security. For instance clauses in the bill authorise the permanent invalidation of passports and other travel documents that have been reported lost or stolen and this helps prevent the use of such passports for criminal purposes.Other clauses refine provisions in the Act that already enable the recall and cancellation of passports for specified reasons. These amendments in the bill provide for the travel document database to be flagged when passports have been recalled or cancelled. This information is then shared with border control agencies quickly under existing arrangements.Finally the bill gives extraterritorial application to the offence of false representation. This change aims to reduce the risk of the online passport application service being misused by individuals who are based overseas or who apply to the Department of Internal Affairs’ London or Sydney offices with false information.To conclude I believe it is important that the operational practices of this world-class Government service are supported by modern legislation. The majority of the amendments in the bill are of a relatively minor and technical nature or they simply update the Act to reflect computerised processes. In that respect the bill will ensure that the passport service continues to operate effectively to help New Zealand citizens living all over the world and that appropriate safeguards preventing the misuse of the service are put in place and maintained.Importantly the bill will ensure that New Zealanders will benefit from the convenience of a longer passport validity period. I believe that the House should therefore get this bill moving through the select committee process and enacted as soon as possible and it is with considerable pleasure that I now commend the bill to the House.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the first reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I would describe the New Zealand passport as a taonga actually. When we are travelling overseas the New Zealand passport allows us to visit 170 other countries without a visa. The New Zealand passport has a very high standard and is recognised around the world as having a very high standard of quality attached to it. So the New Zealand passport is valued by every single New Zealander I believe who has one. New Zealanders do not like 5-year passports. Despite the fact that in 2005 there was a real need to have such a passport New Zealanders have never liked it and have actively sought a longer period of validity. Increasing it to 10 years was Labour Party policy last year. We had a campaign to raise the validity of a passport to 10 years from 5 years. More than 15000 people signed a petition to that effect and we made that our policy. So it is really good to see that this bill has finally made it to the House to increase the validity of New Zealand passports from 5 years to 10 years. That is certainly something that the Labour Party supports. It was in fact our policy and it is good to see that the Government has finally caught up.In talking about this amendment bill I want to also touch on a number of other things particularly an issue that will be important to New Zealanders and that is the cost of making applications. Over the past 5 years due to timing issues I have actually had to renew my passport three times in that period. One of the things that New Zealanders will be thinking about—and I refer to “Regulatory impact statement: Passport validity period” and its executive summary’s point No. 6. It reads: “The decision on whether to remain with a cost-recovery model or provide Crown revenue to limit fee rises is in our view a decision involving political trade-offs that should be made by Cabinet.” Never a truer word was written. The actual cost of processing a passport apparently is around $400. It has been recorded that in order to I guess make this more palatable for New Zealanders to accept the Minister has said that it would be set at around $180. We know that leading into this period the cost of processing the passports in the last few years has been subsidised from an accumulated fund which is now exhausted. I understand that there would need to be additional funds to subsidise the processing of passports moving forward over the next 5 years and beyond.I also want to make a point that in transitioning from a 5-year passport to a 10-year passport in around 2020 there would be possibly or most probably a surplus of staff. Logic tells me that me that if you are extending the validity of passports to 10 years then there will be fewer passports to be renewed over a period of time—a transitional period of up to 5 years out. That is certainly on this side of the House an issue that we would take particular interest in and we look forward to the select committee process so that we can examine fully these kinds of issues.As the Minister of Internal Affairs pointed out there are a number of technical changes in this bill. I am particularly interested in the online issue. I am sure we will have good and robust debate and discussions in the select committee over that issue. I am going to try to compare what I think—because I am not absolutely certain that there is a need to remove that option. I am told that technology advances in the power of the computer double every year so we might want to look more closely. As a comparison I will say this: as I understand it last year the select committee in its examination of the passport issue came to the conclusion that having biometric data within passports was more likely to have reduced the falsifying or counterfeiting of passports than the 5-year validity period. I would also suggest that maybe technology as it advances could be available to address those concerns about having online renewal of passports. I think that the online applications for new passports might be a separate issue but I do look forward to having a discussion in the select committee stage around those particular clauses.The Minister in charge of this when it becomes an Act will have the ability also to record or to note warnings on files travel documents and passports. I think we need to carefully examine that as well to make sure. We are seeing other similar legislation go through the House and I think that it would be important for us to ensure that that is used appropriately and that New Zealanders always have the ability to get home. We have discussed other bills and Acts in this House that traverse that issue and I think that within the Government Administration Committee it is one of the areas also that I would be paying particular interest to.I go back to my original comments about the 5-year validity period increasing to 10 years. I certainly do wonder why it has taken so long. I am pleased that it has finally arrived here but I am bound to say that it is another example of the Government being out of touch with New Zealand families because they have been talking about this issue for quite some time. For the Government to only nowbe dealing with this particular issue—at this stage of the Government’s 7 years on the benches opposite—I think that maybe this is political poll policy reacting to what New Zealanders want albeit very slowly and albeit with some real doubts about some of the things in this bill. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. Thank you very much. Kia ora.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) and it is a true pleasure to take this short call because this is going to be a very popular move. We have all wanted this for a while but in response to the member opposite Adrian Rurawhe I think it is important to outline why it was the case that our 10-year period of validity for passports was reduced to 5 years. That was done of course on the back of the 9/11 attacks in the States which were horrifying events and really did change the world landscape with regard to terror. Since then we have seen such horrific events through Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other terror groups so it is very important for us to take our security seriously. As passports are our prime form of identification we need to make sure that our passport holds its integrity and that we deter counterfeiters from preying on a passport as the member opposite did identify for himself. He said that our passport is well respected and valued overseas. So as part of that the Government has looked at biometrics bringing in place a chip to store biometric information about the passport holder in the passport but of course reducing the term was one way to deter counterfeiters from preying on our passport.So that was the reason but of course since then we have secured the passport. The security is now good. We are quite pleased with where we have got to and now it is time to increase the term again and that will be well received. There is nothing worse than having to turn around and fill out more forms after a short time to reapply for travel. New Zealand is a nation of travellers. In fact 77 percent of us hold passports and being as the Minister said geographically isolated as a country the tradition has always been that Kiwis will fly and we head off and do our OE or overseas experience. I am no exception to that of course and I needed a passport to do that and I guess that was when I realised the full value of travelling on a Kiwi passport. It is well respected our country is well respected overseas and it helps the ease of travelling through Europe. So of course this is going to be a popular bill. It is going to be well received but I certainly look forward to the process as we progress this through the select committee.The other thing about this amendment bill is that it is not going to extend the validity period for children. Obviously children’s appearances change too rapidly. I have got a couple of children myself. I see how fast they grow. They sprout up like mushrooms so security-wise we simply cannot issue them a 10-year passport. You would take a photo and just a couple of days later it just would not reflect who they were so it is important that we maintain that difference. It is important for security and I think that mums and dads will understand that exemption in respect of maintaining our security but having to update passports for their young ones.I want to touch on the online system because of course it is a target of this Government under our Better Public Services target to have most—77 percent in fact—of our interactions with the Government online. The online system of applying for passports has been well received and the take-up has been very good. That is going to improve interactions with the Government. The system again is secure and will help people through the process of applying for a passport and getting that as a good and secure form of identification.So it is with pleasure that I partake in this first reading of this bill. I think it will be something that is well received by the public. It is refreshing to say the least to try to keep down and minimise paperwork. But at the same time the public should be heartened that our passport is in a good space is secure and obviously is still well respected around the world. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). Over the last couple of days and again later in the House today I have been and will be speaking a bit about passports and about the quality of citizenship. Passports are as my colleague Mr Rurawhe says a taonga. They are important to us and they do differentiate us from other people around the world. They are well sought after by those unscrupulous people who would take our passports off us because having a New Zealand passport allows us to travel to many countries of the world where other passports may not take those passport-holders. We do support this bill going to the select committee and there are a few components of this bill that I am hopeful the select committee will spend some time reviewing and refining and coming back to us with some answers for.The most significant part of this bill is the validity period—moving that from 5 years to 10 years. As my colleague has already said that really has come about by public pressure—New Zealanders not really enjoying the shortened 5-year period of their passports. We are great travellers being right down here at the end of the world. We do a lot of travelling and the renewal period is quite prescriptive being at 5 years.The issue around the cost is interesting. The Minister of Internal Affairs has made various statements in the public arena about the cost being set at $180 and this reflecting really the cost savings over the period of time of moving out the validity period from 5 to 10 years. That is a very interesting point and I do want to just pick up on something that I read a statement from the Minister that came out in the Taranaki Daily News a couple of days ago which shows that Cabinet papers reveal that the Government will need to front an extra $200 million to double the validity period to actually cover the costs of the passport. The actual cost of the passport sits at around $400. I think this is really interesting because Treasury did say to the Department of Internal Affairs that it did not want this decision made based on financial reasons. But Mr Dunne is in favour of subsidising the passport in order to keep it affordable as a public good. Although I understand that the ability to have a passport and to travel is an important right for a New Zealander it does seem like an issue that should be discussed at the select committee because it does seem at odds with Treasury recommendations.Also a very good point was made that the child’s passport stays at 5 years because yes it is true that children’s appearances do change and a period of 10 years would not be appropriate for them. But the 10-year validity period throws into the mix another issue and that is around the issue of technology and how quickly technology does move. In terms of our passport with its chip we were one of the first countries to move to the passport with a chip which makes it easier to move through borders as the process is much quicker but it also does beg a question about technology. Ten years is a long time in the technological world the modern age. It is a long time and technology will change quickly over that time. The ability to potentially counterfeit passports or to find ways to replicate chips in passports in that 10 years is a distinct possibility.One of the concerns I have that I hope the select committee will pick up on is that there will not be the need to see the physical passport in order to cancel it. You can do so electronically on the database. I am concerned for a couple of reasons. What concerns me is that mistakes do happen and it would seem like a useful checking process to have the physical passport in front of you before you actually cancelled that passport. We know from other discussions in this House that databases including the databases of the Government are not always entirely secure and it is a possibility that databases can be hacked or manipulated and people may have their passports cancelled when that is not actually required. That also brings into question the ability for Kiwis to return home should their passports be invalidated incorrectly. This bill also provides for the extraterritorial application of the offence of false application which I thought was an interesting phrase. What that means is that when you apply to an overseas New Zealand passport office if your application is falsely made it is now an offence for that application to be made at an overseas passport office.I have referred to the cost of the 10-year passports but I found it really interesting that one of the concerns is around the issue of identity documents. When it comes to foreign nationals who do not have appropriate identity documents we are looking to reduce the length of validity of identity documents that an overseas national without appropriate identity documents can have down to a period of 1 year. This is an issue that has come up in my electorate a couple of times in the last couple of years. There have been people from Somalia who have identity documents that are not considered valid in a number of jurisdictions and they are finding it very difficult to have any ability to travel—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for the member’s colleague—it is very disorderly Mr Lees-Galloway.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. Just to reiterate I was talking about the identity documents for certain groups of people. We are moving in this bill to reduce the period of time for which we will provide identity documents for people who find it difficult to have their own national identity documents recognised by New Zealand. I was referring to Somali people. I know there is some issue with them being able to obtain appropriate documents through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.I also just want to pick up on a point that the previous speaker spoke to—that 70 percent of the interactions with the Government are to go online. Although on the face of it that sounds like a very useful process it does also flag the fact that there are barriers for those people who do not have access to online facilities. What mechanisms are to be in place for people who cannot use computers do not have access to computers may not be able to afford the internet or cannot access free internet because of remote locations? It does call into question why we would have such a high reliance on our interactions being online. There is also again the issue of security around online interactions and the ability to hack into and manipulate those systems. So just in conclusion I say that I look forward to the work the select committee will do on this issue and I hope that it will be able to address some of the concerns I have raised. Thank you.BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the first reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a great pleasure to be able to stand here and be giving the public what they have requested—a bill that will return a New Zealand passport to a validity period of 10 years and one that supports New Zealanders’ desire to be and history of being adventurous and global explorers. In doing so it is important to note that we will not be compromising the security or indeed the international reputation of our passport. It will contain the latest technology to protect passport holders from identity fraud. It will ensure that our passport holders can access as many countries tomorrow without a visa as they can today—a number that is around 170.It is important to reflect on the fact that the reputation of New Zealand’s passport is extraordinarily high. We are in fact the eighth most desirable passport in the world in terms of the number of countries we can access without an entry visa and that comes from a study done by global advisory firm Arton Capital. It may not surprise anyone in New Zealand to know that as eighth in the world we are ahead of Australia and in fact with the performance post the global financial crisis of this National-led Government it will not surprise any Australians that we are ahead of them now too. But we do indeed have a very strong reputation for the quality security and robustness of processes around our identity documents.But that reputation also is something of a magnet for criminals fraudsters people who realise that if they can get hold of a New Zealand passport—if they can counterfeit one if they can repurpose one—then they have an advantage of themselves or other people perhaps being able to access the borders of other countries that much more easily. I just have a quote here from a Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies lecturer Rhys Ball. He noted that “The Kiwi passport helps reduce an individual’s profile. It is looked upon as a non-threatening travel document originating in a country with a robust processing system.”But it is worth noting that although we are very strong and robust in our processes we are not immune from fraudulent activity. In the period from 2010 to 2014 over 11000 New Zealand passports were stolen and over 42000 were lost. In fact even in just one case in 2009 Roderick Robinson used Rex Smith’s passport to flee to Portugal in that year. So we must remain ever vigilant. When we look at that it is the reason why we moved to the state that we are currently in with a 5-year validity period.I just want to recap that a little because I think the history of where we have come from is important in understanding why we can now make a change without compromising security. So it was in the early 2000s—in 2002—when the Department of Internal Affairs advised the Minister of a rising number of attacks on New Zealand passports and a shift from crimes of opportunity to crimes of intent with sophisticated forgery and counterfeiting. There was also the new US legislation for homeland security that demanded machine-readable passports with biometric identifiers. Non-compliance with that would have seen us lose our visa-waiver status which would have required Kiwis travelling to the States to visit the US consulate in Auckland in person and to pay visa fees.On top of that in 2003 there was a review on border security particularly around counter-terrorism threats and measures. So a bill was introduced and given to the Government Administration Committee in 2004. After hearing submissions and deliberating it reported back that it recommended that passport validity be reduced to 5 years. It noted that the longer a passport has been in circulation the greater the chance that its security features will become outdated and easily altered or successfully duplicated. Its view was that security and international reputation outweighed the inconvenience of a shorter validity period.It is with great pleasure that our officials will tell us now—and that we in this Parliament are now debating it and saying that it is possible—that we can now take a position where we can react to changes in the world where we have a very very robust and secure passport and that we can in fact look to return to a much longer validity period of 10 years without compromising the security of our people’s identities or risking our international reputation. It is going to be a very very good debate in the select committee. I look forward to that and I commend this bill to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I think when we are looking at the bill and its introduction it is important to trace back to where the inspiration for this policy change came from. I believe that it was from a petition launched by Kyle Lockwood. In his interview in the Sunday Star-Times he said that he was inspired to create the petition after he saw a really upset mother with her son at Melbourne airport who could not fly because her passport had less than 6 months left on it so it was about to become invalid.It is important that we acknowledge the democratic process and that it was a petition that ultimately led to this bill coming to the House and that it was a campaign that did that. Although the democratic process can move really slowly we really do need to celebrate the fact that an ordinary New Zealander was listened to in the halls of power and we are hopefully changing policy as a result. I guess from our point of view this is a good partial application of one of the principles of our founding charter for the Green Party which is appropriate decision-making. That means that decisions are made directly at the appropriate level by those affected. Although the people who are affected did not directly get to decide I am glad that we have listened to the voice of Kyle Lockwood.We have been supporting that campaign for 10-year passports throughout the process. My colleague Mojo Mathers agreed with the recommendation from the Government Administration Committee to review the current system with a view to extending it once that petition came to the select committee. We support this move for a variety of reasons. The policy of 10-year passports will save ordinary New Zealanders the hassle the stress and the time-consuming nature of applying for a new passport as well as saving money.There has been some discussion about what it costs. The current cost of the 5-year passport is $134.50 or $26.90 a year. The proposed fee of $180 for the 10-year passport works out to be just $18.00 a year. This proposal also brings us into line with international standards. Much of the European Union most of the Americas most of Asia and even our cousins in Australia have 10-year passports. I think it is fair to acknowledge the evidence from the Department of Internal Affairs that was presented during the select committee inquiry. I have to say that it ultimately concluded its evidence by saying that it considers a 10-year validity period acceptable. But it had serious concerns about reintroducing 10-year passports because it feared that it would encourage criminal organisations to invest in counterfeiting New Zealand passports and I think that is a fair concern.That is I guess why we are so disappointed that this National Government has been investing fewer resources in public safety through the police that would counter that. Yesterday my colleague David Clendon released figures that show that spending on the Police budget has fallen by 5.7 percent which means that there is less public safety happening and certainly less investigation. This is sadly emblematic of the National Government’s chronic under-investment in public services and that is a point that was reinforced in a report released on 8 June by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions saying that our health system for example was $1 billion worse off than 6 years ago which works out to be about $220 per New Zealander.The fact that the department’s submission identified that the change from 5 years to 10 years could lead to a revenue problem further reinforces my point that under this National-led Government our public services are scrambling to penny-pinch the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. The Government has basically been fiscally reckless by giving tax cuts to the very wealthy on their top incomes.We are assured by the evidence given at the Government Administration Committee’s review of the passport validity period that biometric passportsreduce the risks of counterfeiting and identity fraud to such a degree that the validity period could be safely extended—and that is a direct quote. However we do have some concerns. They arise from the findings of Simon Murdoch’s passport security review as laid out in the regulatory impact statementfor this bill where he concludes by saying that investment would be necessary to reduce the risks of moving to a 10-year validity period. That is why we would much prefer that the added security of biometric passportswas supplemented by adequate funding of public safety. We need to restore that 5.7 percent to the police. Although technology can be a wonderful thing it is no substitute for an adequately funded public service. We cannot and should not skimp on funding our core public services. An investment approach is absolutely crucial for our country’s security.There are other measures in this bill that we support such as better provisions for cancellation and usage of our travel documents database. In the 21st century it should not be necessary for a modern Government department to physically cancel a document that needs to be sent and received sometimes from half a world away. Also this data move will save us money and time. Despite many disagreements with my colleagues across the House on many many issues I am happy and we are happy to be working with them on this issue to make a change that was spurred on by an ordinary New Zealander. It is fantastic to see democracy in action when it actually works. Thank you.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I stand to take a call for New Zealand First in the first reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2).David Seymour: Very strong opinions.CLAYTON MITCHELL: And already David Seymour you are into it. I would like to start by simply saying: David if you throw a party and you are the only person—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Orders require the member to refer to another member by his full name not only his Christian name.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is actually not quite accurate but the Speakers’ rulings do require that and the member I am sure will react much more appropriately to future interjections.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Absolutely. So let me finish what I am saying Mr Seymour of the David variety. At the end of the day if you throw a party and you are the only person who shows up at that party are you actually throwing a party or are you just a person by yourself at home alone—because it is a lot of noise from a very very small corner over there.I would like to add that I have been as busy as a bee with a bum full of honey in the Beehive today and there has been a little bit of a lack of preparedness for today’s delivery. But I dare say I think that just about every single New Zealander could stand up and speak to this piece of legislation because finally we have got a little bit of common sense. I would also like to say this—and I bet you that this compliment does not come across very often to the honourable member Peter Dunne—for the simple reason that I commend him for fighting hard to get the costs of passports down when Cabinet was originally coming out with a fee of around $225 and for bringing that fee down to $180. So I would like to congratulate him on fighting a good fight for New Zealanders; however I think that there is still more of a fight that needs to be had.Although New Zealand First strongly supports this bill—in fact back in 2012 the Rt Hon Winston Peters spoke to this matter for the first time and New Zealand First was the first party to say that this was absurd. The reality of cutting back passports from 10 years to 5 years when the vast majority of the world—the Western World that was supposedly affected by the terror attacks—kept their passports at 10 years for me was that it was an opportunity for this Government to collect revenue to put some money in the coffers and it was at the expense of everyday Kiwis.Sarah Dowie also mentioned the 77 percent of Kiwis who have passports. That is fantastic. We are a flightless bird and we do like to travel the world. I myself have had many passports and travelled the world too but we should be making it affordable for 100 percent of Kiwis to be able to do that. Travel internationally at the moment is probably the cheapest it has ever been and we should not be excluding any New Zealander from being able to afford that right. Denise Roche said that the cost of passports over a 10-year period is going to be reduced by nearly $100 over that period. But if you think about it the actual cost of putting a passport together is the same—it does not matter whether you are doing it for 5 years or 10 years. So in actual fact there is no cost saving. We should be able to bring the cost of passports back even more than to $180.David Seymour: Oh fixed and variable costs mate.CLAYTON MITCHELL: And if you would let the grown-ups just speak for a moment Mr Seymour we might give you some sort of positive thinking and some practical sensible and innovative ideas. If we are just throwing a little bit of a sling out here the reality is that at the moment I think there are 20-odd pages in a passport. If we cut back the number of pages in a passport—because let us be honest back in the 1990s when I was doing some prolific travelling you used to have to ask for countries to stamp your passport and even after 10 years you could not actually fill up all the pages in your passport. It was almost like you would wear it as a badge of honour—how many different countries you went to when you were travelling around Europe. By simply looking at things practically we might actually be able to reduce the cost of those passports by reducing the number of pages that are in them and that might be brought out in the select committee.The second point I would like to bring your attention to is how quickly this Government can react—with the recent retrospective legislation it has put through and backdated that ripped the $1000 kick-start contribution off the table. So we know that this Government when it is in action can get things done. That piece of legislation did not suit the vast majority of New Zealanders but this piece of legislation does. We have been getting a lot of correspondence and I am sure that Labour has been getting it and that National has been getting it. The Greens have certainly been getting it as well. We have in New Zealand First people writing to us to ask why this piece of legislation is taking so long to come through. It should not take this amount of time—until 1 January 2016—to get this through. If we have made a decision as a political movement and it looks like we have got full support across the table I for one would be happy to debate this in urgency and take it right through to the end stages to push this through.There will be Supplementary Order Papers but the reality is that there are people here right now in this country waiting to put in their applications for their passports. They are wanting to travel but they cannot and they are going to be locked into a 5-year passport deal. Right now it looks like we are seriously making a move forward for the betterment of New Zealand so why cannot this go into urgency? I urge you to consider that and put that to the House for consideration.There are some serious concerns from New Zealand First with regard to a media report that was sent out last week on 9 June about the potential doubling up—$400 by 2021—for those costs of passports. The cost and the time issue are certainly the most fundamental issues that we have to keep up with the play on. We understand about the modernising of the Passports Act 1992 and about the 16-year-olds who get only 5-year passports. We understand that. I think that is a sensible pragmatic solution. I have got young children myself and goodness me they change. From the week that I start Parliament to the week that I get home they look different. I can understand that that is in line with the rest of the world so we also support that.I would also like to say just to finish things off—because again I could waffle on and take up 10 minutes of everybody’s precious time back home—that I think the message is clear out there that we are behind in this. The piece of legislation putting passports back to a 5-year passport was not from the National Government as was suggested; it was actually done by the Labour Government. I think that move was a little bit too quick off the hip and I think we should have stuck with those 10-year passports. Now it is coming down to getting those costs down and actually making it affordable for New Zealanders to travel.I am concerned that the cost of travelling is being increased with new legislation the travel tax that has been put through—$16 out; $6 coming back. A young family with four or five family members wanting to pop across the Ditch to Australia for a week is now up for $100-odd. Putting in the cost of the passport we need to do what we can to get these flightless Kiwi birds out on their planes and travelling around the rest of the world. It is a great world to see but when you are out there you realise what a wonderful country we live in and it certainly does make you appreciate it a lot more. Thank you.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This week was a little unusual for me. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Government Administration Committee and now I have got the privilege of speaking on a bill that is going to the Government Administration Committee.Jami-Lee Ross: Moving up in the world.IAN McKELVIE: I must be as the whip says moving up in the world. I have been promoted.But anyway during the Budget debate on the border processing arrivals and departures levy we learnt how many people were coming and going from New Zealand now—some 5.2 million per year—and of those about 2.5 million are New Zealanders so clearly those 2.5 million need to have a New Zealand passport. It shows the very high demand for New Zealand passports. In fact we know that 77 percent of all New Zealanders have a New Zealand passport.Interestingly passports are not always used for travel. Most electorate MPs will know that through their electorate offices they will get a lot of people coming in complaining about the fact that they have got to find some form of ID. If they do not have a driver’s licence or indeed a firearms licence or something like that then a passport is often the only form of ID they can effectively use. There are people who do have a passport but never use it for travel so passports are a broader thing than just being used for travel.Just to go into the background of this bill the terrorism acts of 2001 in my view were a good reason for the Government of the day to change—Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us about sheep passports.IAN McKELVIE: Well we have clearly had a lot of discussion on sheep passports this week. It proved my point actually—Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh God—ha ha!IAN McKELVIE: Well you are clearly on my side on that. Mr Assistant Speaker I have been distracted.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am having trouble with the relevance of it.IAN McKELVIE: But the reason we reduced the terms of those passports was of course for security reasons around identity security and around the ability to track changes in behaviour of people from time to time and new technology has now given the Government the opportunity and the confidence I guess to extend the period of passport eligibility to 10 years which as the previous speakers have noted will make a difference to the cost of a passport and will certainly make a difference to the amount of hassle one has in getting a passport. In fact like one of the previous speakers I have had to get three passports in the last 5 years because I inadvertently dumped one of my passports as it came in the post from the Passports Office—so the online passport system was not exactly clever.But surprising as it may seem I think this is a Government that cares listens to New Zealanders and reacts appropriately. Although we may feel that Governments are slow to react I think we also need to realise that Governments are creating legislation and law for the long term. I think it is pretty essential that something as important as a passport gives us the opportunity to be sure that we are on very solid ground before we change the law around passports and find ways of issuing them.As many people have said it is a privilege to hold a passport for a start and this new legislation will make it easier for the authorities to remove a passport. They will not have to have it in hand. It is done merely by the click of a button on a computer or a phone. It will be easier to get a passport. It will be easier to take a passport away. I think the whole process will be improved by the introduction of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). That is my short contribution to this bill and I wish it all the best as it goes into the select committee process.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call from the Green Party. I call Mojo Mathers.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to take a call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party supports this bill and in particular we support the provision to extend the term of adult passports to 10 years. I was on the Government Administration Committee last year which considered the petition that has triggered this legislation. I just want to acknowledge the very high calibre and quality of the information that was presented in support of this petition. It was incredibly well researched and was backed up with lots of evidence about what is happening around the world to show that it is an exceptionally reasonable request to go back to a 10-year term for adult passports.The petition was presented by Kyle Lockwood and was signed by more than 15000 New Zealanders but the public discussion in the media shows that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that this was something of extreme concern to many New Zealanders—the cost the hassle and the stress involved in having to renew their passports every 5 years. In fact the 5-year term means that passports are in effect only really valid for 4½ years for a lot of travel overseas because of the requirement to have a passport that is valid for 6 months. I think it is really encouraging to see an ordinary New Zealander making such good use of the democratic process bringing a case to the select committee and being heard by the select committee so that we were compelled to make a recommendation in favour of the request. It has been absolutely fantastic to see the Government responding to that and now bringing legislation to the House to address that concern.One of the key points that were made by the petitioners in favour of the extension was the fact that most of New Zealand’s trading partners have 10-year passports—whether we are talking about Australia the US China the UK and so on. It is even more compelling because of the fact that New Zealand is on the inter-governmental group that developed this passport—this practice. Four of the five countries on that committee—that is the other four—all issue 10-year passports and they are Australia Canada the UK and the US. It was starting to look and feel like New Zealand was being overly paranoid about passport security when all of our trading partners and the people on the committee that is actually considering this passport practice have 10-year passports. Why are we a small country down here in the Pacific being so excessively paranoid about passport security? In addition the International Civil Aviation Organization has also recommended 10-year passports. So again how can we decide that 5 years is the best practice? I think it is just silly.Of course the public also moved that with the incredible strives in biometric information we can either address or mitigate a lot of the security concerns. We are never going to have 100 percent security around passports but what we can look at is what a reasonable level of security around passportsis. I feel very confident that we can address these security concerns at the select committee when the bill comes to the select committee. Thank you very much.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call. I call David Seymour.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): An earlier speaker said that he found it a great pleasure to speak on this bill and he said it with great conviction. It was possibly more a reflection of the member than the bill but it is important that we get this technical adjustment made. I cannot help but respond to a few earlier speakers. There was one from the Labour Party who said that it was a policy issue as to whether passports should be funded by user-pays or general taxation. Only the modern Labour Party would seriously contemplate taxing the working class to pay for a good that is entirely private in its benefit—entirely private in its benefit—and used by people who can afford to leave the country. But that is a sad commentary on the current state of the Labour Party members who have forgotten whom they represent and where they are.I thought perhaps I should also respond to the earnest member from New Zealand First only to say that I believe he is improving in his speaking and may become a very good parliamentarian in due course. I wonder members whether I should try to explain to him the difference between fixed and variable costs but he has got the professor—oh no he does not. Perhaps I should try to explain that the reason it can cost more per unit to produce a smaller number of passports is that indeed some costs are fixed and others are variable.Iain Lees-Galloway: How much did it cost for David’s garage?DAVID SEYMOUR: I think that was a private arrangement Mr Lees-Galloway. I would like to speak on behalf of some constituents I have heard from who have told me that they find themselves in the difficult position of being eligible to renew their passport between now—or at least between August 2014 when this change was first announced—and the time when they will be able to get a 10-year passport. These people “the 1¼ years people” find themselves requiring another 5-year passport and they are missing out on the benefit of this bill.If you think about it there is a 5-year term for passports so in 1¼ years around 30 percent nearly a third of all passport holders will be caught in the delay between the announcement of this change and the change coming into effect. Indeed it was announced first in August 2014. It was announced again in April 2015 and it was announced again in May 2015. As one of my constituents wrote this has been announced more times than the coming of Christ. And how many times does the Government impose a similarly complex—or indeed much more complex—change which is ultimately a change in a price and date upon small businesses and across New Zealanders and their households and expect them to adapt much more rapidly to far more complex changes with so little notice?This is a worthwhile consideration for anybody who thinks about the impact that we in this House can have upon people when we make regulations when we raise taxes and when we provide services in a certain way. So often the regulations and the Acts in this House have a disproportionate cost imposed on people out there and it is very important that we are always mindful of the impact that the Government with its coercive powers and its very powerful legislative instruments can have on the welfare of ordinary New Zealanders. So with those few considerations in mind I like Brett Hudson take great pleasure in the idea that we will soon again have 10-year passports—a much more efficient outcome—and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in its first reading and obviously commend it as it goes through to the Government Administration Committee. Like my honoured colleague over here Ian McKelvie I have not sat on that select committee but I believe that the work of the select committee will be important in discussing some of the issues of importance to all Kiwis.First of all can I just say that one of the things that is importantis in regard to the timing—and I know that there were comments made by New Zealand First by Clayton Mitchell. I think that was a good point because timing is something that is important. We know that other countries responded differently when it came to the issues of 9/11. New Zealand is in a unique situation because in a sense it did respond—it did reduce the number—and there are a couple of reasons for that. Part of it was to ensure that the technology was available in order to detect any sort of fraudulent behaviour that may have been happening. So that is what you would call the key issue that came to us.When we talk about timing as of now returning back to the House there are a couple of things. There were two reviews that were undertaken. One of those reviews was in regard to the cost. Many people sort of thought: “Well this is just a typical Government situation where we go from 10 years to 5 years where we put the cost up to over $200 and it is generating revenue for the Government.” Can I just put on record before the House that the Government does not actually gain any fees from the cost of passports. It is done on a cost-recovery basis so it is very minimal and is actually in regard to the administration costs for passports. So I just want to stake that out there. This is not a Government money-generating exercise.The second thing is just in regard to technology. We know that that is important as we enter in and out of borders. New Zealand in particular has SmartGate and we often use that. I use it quite oftennow. It is a lot easier to be able to enter in and out using SmartGate. Why? Because we now have the technology that is important and that allows us to travel in and out quite easily and accessibly. In saying that over 77 percent of New Zealanders actually have a passport. The interesting thing about technology is that over 40 percent of those who make renewals actually make them online. And so we think that the investment in regard to technology is also really important.I want to commend this bill to the select committee and the work that it has to take. I think it is important. It will be interesting to see the submissions that come out and whether there are any changes. We think that this is a good bill obviously. It is going to a select committee that actually has a neutral perspective in regard to its numbers because it is believed that actually this is something that is agreed oncommonly right across the House. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its return. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is just as well that you called me Mr Deputy Speaker because I was the only person taking the call. That is a big relief to me. It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I want first of all to commend the Minister responsible for the bill the Hon Peter Dunne and thank him for responding to the recommendation of our Government Administration Committee which considered a petition on this very issue. It was a really interesting consideration of a petition: learning about the background to the move from the previous 10 year to 5-year passports what other countries internationally had done and of course how technology has moved on. It was a mature debate at our committee and I know that the current membership will welcome this bill to be considered by new members of the select committee.I want to recommend a more mature approach to the consideration of policy issues particularly to the sole member from the ACT Party David Seymour. I think he has got a contribution to make to this House. I probably will not ever agree with him—I hope not; it is unlikely—but I still thinkthat in a democracy in a valuable democracy such as this Parliament we should have different views heard. But I think it would be a good thing for him to consider contributing to a debate from a less ideological and less entrenched position. We all agree on this bill. It would be good to say that things have moved on we have changed our minds instead of trying to throw grenades at a Government that changed the law probably around the year he was born. It was not that long ago; he is a young man. But I would recommend that.David Seymour: Hey look. You don’t talk about my age; I won’t talk about yours.Hon RUTH DYSON: And if the member does not want to take my advice on his contribution in a better form let me just say two words to him about this issue: David Garrett. I would not go there if I were you. I bet that party wished it had never ever gone near that person. But the issues of identification the issues of fraud the issues of misrepresentation the potential threat to our security—all bring David Garrett to mind actually—were the very reason that at the time officials recommended and the Government that I was proud to be part of accepted the proposal that we move from 10 year to 5-year passports.Since that time my colleagues the Hon Trevor Mallard—a fine chair of the Committee on occasions—and the Hon Phil Goff have both campaigned really hard within our party and outside it actually for the return of a 10-year passport. They were both heavily involved in the discussion at the time when we moved from 10 years to 5 years and understood the increased threat and risk and our lack of confidence in the security of our systems at the time. They said things had moved on. They persuaded Labour of that. It was our policy at the last election to return to 10-year passports. They argued it strongly when the petition came to our select committee. I think it was a member of Mr Seymour’s party actually who brought that—you would know all the members of your own party by name I presume—Kyle Lockwood and he was very adequately supported by Jordan Williams from the taxpayers’ something-or-other union. He is certainly an ACT member. But they actually did a very good presentation on this issue to our committee.So through all those pre-discussions as I say we have learnt a lot about the changes—David Seymour: Actually misleading the House.Hon RUTH DYSON: About what? I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure who said it but a young man made a comment that I take offence at and I require him to withdraw and apologise.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the man could self-identify.David Seymour: I believe that the member is referring to me. I have been asked to withdraw and apologise. I will not. The member said that a person is a member—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Be seated. The point is that the member the Hon Ruth Dyson has taken offence at something the member has said. I did not hear it myself. If she has taken offence the member should withdraw and apologise. Actually I will just ask the Hon Ruth Dyson as to what it was that she took offence at.Hon RUTH DYSON: With respect that would be repeating something that I say is unparliamentary. I am happy to come and tell you but I do not think it is helpful for the order of the House to do that. But I give you my assurance that it was something that I genuinely take offence at and I am a fairly robust debater.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. In that case the member will stand withdraw and apologise without comment.David Seymour: I withdraw and apologise.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. So back to the—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has been stating that certain individuals are a member of a political party I happen to lead and that is untrue.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate and we will carry on.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you for the clarification on what was not a point of order. I want to absolutely apologise to Jordan Williams for saying that he was a member of the ACT Party. I can understand why Mr Williams would be offended at that. I thought he was; I apologise. I will never make that sort of assertion again.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe we should come back to the bill.Hon RUTH DYSON: OK. It has been a bit of a tradition in the House over the last few months to end the week on a bill on which there is agreement and I am pretty sure that there is unanimous agreement on this bill. I think it is a very good way for us to end the week’s session.I want to make a couple of comments on the specifics of the bill. It is interesting that technology does not seem to allow us to replace photos of children. So children are still going to have 5-year passports because their looks change more frequently than adults’. I would have thought that there may be enhanced technology to enable a photo to be updated as a child ages rather than the entire passport having to be renewed. There has been considerable debate about the cost of the passport. Originally we were told that it was going from 5 to 10 years and the cost would double. There was a bit of a shocked reaction to that. It certainly does not take double the administration or double the paperwork—literal paperwork in a passport—to extend it from 5 to 10 years so I think the Minister should be commended for his intervention then and it seems to have got back to a more reasonable rate.There are some other specific areas in the bill that I think will warrant quite close attention from the select committee. We want to get this right. We want to make sure that the original reasons that we changed from 10 years to 5 years and that was as I say our lack of confidence in the robustness of our system so that we could have confidence that it was not being used for fraud and that it was not being used as a way of having people enter our country when we did not want them to or that they were able to change identity or misuse passports in any fraudulent way—so those issues I think we will want to re-examine at the select committee and we have had a good advance on that through our petition deliberation.Then there are other “let’s look to the future while we have this opportunity” chances that this legislation will provide us with. For example do we have to continue to do so much of the work on paper? Can we do more online? What is the current situation in regard to the security? I have been very impressed with the way the Department of Internal Affairs has updated access to online renewal of passports. Is that going to still be maintained under the 10-year issue and will it give us the integrity without having individual verification?So just in conclusion I think this is a great note on which to end the week with Parliament agreeing that this is a good bill worthy of progress. The select committee that I am privileged to chair will welcome it. I hope that we give it the level of scrutiny that it deserves and I look forward to its further progress through the House.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in its first reading. Like the previous Government member Mr Ngaro I do not sit on the Government Administration Committee but it is nevertheless a bill that will have an impact on many of my constituents. I was just looking over the recent tourism numbers of those who travelled—and Mr McKelvie touched on this—and in the last year there were 2.31 million New Zealand residents who travelled overseas which reached the highest record in our history and sees a 4 percent increase in international trips by New Zealand residents in the last year. Interestingly around half of those trips were to Australia with the next most-visited countries in order being the US Fiji the UK China and the Cook Islands. So that is a fascinating fact for the day there.I just want to touch on a point that Mr Clayton Mitchell made in his insightful contribution around some of the considerations that he would like to have seen put into this bill. Particularly there were a couple of suggestions around the number of pages in passports potentially reducing which somehow could reduce the administration costs included there. Changing the materials that passports are made of also the colour combinations used on passports as well as the watermark solutions that could potentially be on the pages would also potentially reduce the cost of passports. If you combined simpler watermark solutions on the passport pages with reducing the number of pages it probably would save you one or two dollars. So there were very interesting points made by New Zealand First.Just getting back to the main provisions of the bill we see that it will increase the validity of passports from 5 years to 10 years for citizens aged 16 and older. The reasons behind children not being included in that have been well canvassed and the point was made by Ms Dyson just before around potentially some technology solutions to include updated photos of children in passports. I think yes she is right that technology has progressed but one thing that has not progressed is magicianry. The ability to take a blink and slip a photo in and out of a passport—I do not think we have quite reached those technology levels yet. None the less I would just like to reiterate my support for this bill and I look forward to seeing it proceed through the rest of the parliamentary process. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information) on behalf of theMinister of Internal Affairs: I move That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 30 October 2015.Motion agreed to.