Wong Pansy: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14496] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Internal Affairs will not be disappointed. He will be floodedflooded with submissions on those changes. 
National will support the bill going to a select committee because we want to ensure that our passports which entitle New Zealand passport holders to travel to approximately 50 countries in the world without having to apply for a visa will be protected. During the select committeecommittee process we will make it clear that a reduction in the duration of the validity of our passports from 10 to 5 years should be accompanied by a reduction in application fees and by efficient turn-round. We will be seeking an assurance that the power this bill bestows on the Minister of Internal Affairs to withhold issuing travel documents in the name of national security is subject to a robust process and accurate information to ensure that that power is not abused. We support the increase in the penalty—including imprisonment terms—for individuals who forge documents or falsify claims in order to obtain New Zealand passports. National will support the Government’s potential move to introduce a provision to restrict New Zealand citizenship being obtained automatically by children born in our country to foreigners but once again we want that provision to be subject to scrutiny during the select committee process. We wonder whether the Minister has done his homework; if he had his Supplementary Order Paper would have been tabled for scrutiny by now. 
However National will be seeking amendments during the select committee to the part of the bill relating to the change of criteria for obtaining New Zealand citizenship. It is a long bow that the Labour Government is drawing in using national security as a reason to sneak in the requirement for the qualifying period to obtain citizenship to be extended from 3 to 5 years. We have not heard any good reasons for that change and can only speculate that Labour is reacting to the concern that individuals may be leaving New Zealand as soon as they have obtained our citizenship. The minority Labour Government’s answer is to subject all newcomers to wait for another 2 years. 
I have news for this minority Labour Government: since it took office in the last 4 years every week we have had a net loss of 496 people leaving New Zealand permanently especially our young people who are leaving for better opportunities overseas. They are sick and tired of the high personal tax regime here. They are frustrated by the racial divisive policies of Labour the growing crime rate and the political correctness that this minority Labour Government has inflicted on our country. Labour’s naive and arrogant response is to legislate commitment and command loyalty instead of pursuing policies that would attract our people to stay here and our people living overseas to return. 
On the 9th of this month Australia announced changes to reduce the qualifying period to become an Australian citizen from 2 years to 1 year for those individuals who can demonstrate that their work or business overseas is of benefit to Australia. According to Australia the changes reflect a modern world where people of skill and qualifications are in demand and commitment to a country cannot be solely measured by the time one spends in the country. Among the proposed changes individuals would have to spend at least 240 days a year in each of the 5 years in the country to qualify. Would we doubt the contributions made by Peter Jackson Karen Walker Kevin Roberts and shortly Dr John Hood even though they spend the greater part of the year overseas? Should individuals be required physically to live in a country where they are not gainfully employed simply to satisfy that requirement? Do we prefer to pay benefits to people who cannot secure jobs here but are here in order to satisfy the time requirement? 
I believe that it is time New Zealand revamped our citizenship requirements. For far too long I have heard complaints of new migrants not fitting into New Zealand but what are the criteria to measure “fitting in”? How have we communicated New Zealand values to our newcomers? I have just learnt today that according to the Hon Trevor Mallard to be an indigenous New Zealander means to have come from Wainuiomata. Is that a criterion? Australia spells out its Government’s commitment to citizens in writing. In return new citizens of Australia have to pledge to accept Australia’s values of respecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion. When will we implement a process of equipping our newcomers to become New Zealanders? They will have a better chance of becoming one of us if they understand the expectations and know how to acquire those tools. To make a child stay at school is quite different from whether the child has learnt anything. 
I and my hard-working and competent colleague Dr Wayne Mapp have fronted up to nine public meetings with new Asian migrant communities throughout the country with some more to go. They are outraged at the retrospective nature of this change. The effective date of the change is 1 January 2005 which means that someone who has been in the country for 2 years and 11 months by the end of this year will have to wait for another 2 years and 1 month to qualify to be a citizen. That is despite the fact that when those people first applied to migrate to New Zealand they understood that the qualifying period was 3 years. National wants to see amendments made to the legislation so that it will not affect individuals who are already here and hold permanent residence permits or long-term business visas. 
Under the proposed changes the time that temporary permit holders have spent in New Zealand would not be included in the 5-year qualifying period. So international students who come to New Zealand to pursue their study will probably spend up to 5 years here to get their first degree then will spend another year here on a work permit then will convert to permanent residence which means that they would not be eligible to apply to become New Zealand citizens for up to 11 years. We want the select committee to consider whether some proportion of the time spent in New Zealand on a student permit should be counted and what the reasons are for excluding from the new 5-year qualifying period time spent here by people who hold work visas or long-term business visas. Currently a spouse’s qualifying period also receives special treatment. Once again under the new proposal that will be removed. We want to hear evidence of current abuse of that special treatment. 
The changes to citizenship requirements have not been well-considered. Where is the transitional period? What happens to individuals who submit their applications prior to 1 January 2005 and are turned down for various reasons? Would they be required to apply under the new law? This bill is another missed opportunity for effective changes to be made. We could make useful changes to make our citizenship more meaningful and valuable but instead Labour’s knee-jerk changes are causing more uncertainty and frustration. National will support this legislation going to the select committee primarily because of the national security measure but we seek a lot of amendments with regard to the changes to citizenship. I want to share a statement on my website; someone wrote in and said that the retrospective changes are like an airline advertising a discounted airfare and in mid-air the pilot telling the passengers: “Tough luck! The fare has to go up and unless you pay up now you’ll have to get off the plane.” That is exactly what the Labour Party Government is doing to newcomers who are suddenly being told they will no longer qualify for citizenship at the end of their original 3-year qualifying period.