Kedgley Sue: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14501] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I am delivering this speech on behalf of the Green Party spokesperson on human rights Keith Locke. He prepared this speech but he is unable to be here. 
The Green Party will not be supporting this bill even though it does contain some good and useful measures. The bill continues a trend in other legislation that deals with so-called national security or anti-terrorism matters—a trend that is to take away the prosecution and punishment of people from the judicial processes and put that prosecution and punishment into the hands of Government officials—in this case the Minister of Internal Affairs. 
Under this bill the Minister can refuse to issue a passport to a New Zealand citizen and can even take away an existing passport on the grounds of “national security”. We see that as very dangerous. The Government will try to assure us that it is all fine and dandy and that that power will be used only against those planning serious offences such as terrorism the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand etc. But surely a New Zealander doing something seriously unlawful should come before a court and should not be dealt with outside the court by a Minister who has the power to take away his or her passport. When I have asked about that I have been told: “Well the State might not have enough evidence to get a conviction in a court.” That is exactly the problem we are seeing around the world and at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay where politicians and their appointees give themselves the right to judge and punish people outside a judicial process. That is something we should not tolerate here. 
Another argument given to us is that: some “national security” accusations cannot go before a court because the information we have is classified and the overseas jurisdiction we obtained it from will not allow disclosure in any court. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not able to hear myself think. I ask for a little bit of order in the House. Could we deduct that time from my speech? I think it was about a minute when I was trying to get that point across. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Therein lies a serious problem. We are even more aware today that the intelligence services we get most information from—the American British and Australian—make significant mistakes because sometimes they are serving political agendas: either their own or those of the Governments they serve. 
There is a dangerous provision in this bill that allows so-called classified information against a New Zealander whose passport has been taken away on national security grounds to be withheld from him or her in subsequent appeal proceedings before the High Court. Having a passport is a fundamental right of New Zealand citizenship and should not be mucked around with in that way. Sure the person affected has a right to appeal to the High Court but that would be a long involved and costly process during which the person’s overseas travel plans would be suspended. There is no justification for giving the Minister the power to take away our passports instead of charginge us in a criminal court if we do something criminal or conspire to do something criminal. 
There is an additional problem in that the definition of who is a terrorist in the Terrorism Suppression Act is somewhat loose and could be applied to New Zealanders who support liberation movements overseas. The liberation movements led by Nelson Mandela and the East Timor leadership would have qualified as terrorist organisations in that those involved launched major destructive action against the State and even took part in armed actions. The African National Congress put bombs in Government facilities. 
If we remember back to the 1970s and early 1980s the Muldoon Government of the time regarded anti-apartheid leaders like Tom Newmnhaman and Trevor Richards as traitors particularly when they went to conferences overseas and attacked Muldoon’s collaboration with the apartheid regime. Newnhamman’s and Richards’ international travel could well have been curtailed if the then Minister of Internal Affairs had had the power to take their passports away as this bill gives the current Minister the power to do. Let us not say we are just being fanciful here;: we have seen supposedly democratic Governments do that. In the 1950s the US Government took away passports from its critics including respected persons such as Paul Robeson on the grounds that he was a communist sympathiser and a threat to America. We are not suggesting that George Hawkins the current Minister would start taking away the passports of Kiwi dissidents but legislation must be written with future less-tolerant Governments in mind. 
Several provisions in the bill seem to be driven not from any proven New Zealand need but from a desire to do what bigger Anglo-Saxon countries do. Those other countries are driven to impose excessive restrictions on people as part of their so-called war on terrorism. There is no demonstrated need to extend the qualifying period for citizenship from 3 to 5 years. To add insult to injury the provision has been made retrospective which is something legislation should embody only in exceptional circumstances. In this case any changes to the qualifying periods should apply only to people arriving after the passage of the legislation at least. 
Changes to the qualifying period most detrimentally affect New Zealanders with foreign-born spouses—and the spouses themselves whose qualifying period will go from 2 to 5 years. There was and still is a strong argument for spouses to be given preference in terms of a qualifying period. A New Zealander can be severely handicapped when he or she travels abroad often to countries where a New Zealander has visa-free entry if his or her spouse comes from a country—usually a poorer country—whose citizens have difficulty getting a visitor visa. A 2-year qualifying period helps to overcome this problem and should not be departed from. 
There is no good reason either for a legal requirement that new citizens take an oath or affirmation of allegiance at a public ceremony. The practice is desirable and most new citizens are happy to go through such a ceremony but why does it need to be written into law? Kiwis do not mind publicly demonstrating their patriotism—and we do it well at rugby tests—but we do not like to be told we have to do it. The legislation of public citizenship ceremonies has an American showy “hand on heart; salute the flag” whiff about it. We all know where the super-patriotism or false patriotism of the Americans has got them—that is into all sorts of unnecessary wars. 
The bill also makes it unnecessarily tough to grant citizenship to a resident who has a minor conviction. Someone committing even the most minor offence in the last 3 years is excluded from citizenship unless there is a special exemption from the Minister. We believe that the law should be more flexible on that. 
There are some security arguments for reducing the currency of New Zealand passports from 10 years to 5 years but that is going to be a hassle for many New Zealanders particularly those who happen to be overseas when their passport expires. However I do not think we should fool ourselves that that is much protection in itself. Good police work like that which led to the apprehension of two Mossad agents is the way to protect our passports. 
Finally we wish to discuss a provision that is not yet in the bill because the Minister has indicated he may add it later via a Supplementary Order Paper on the bill. It is a provision to take away the automatic citizenship granted to people born here if they are born of people who are not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. This automatic right of citizenship is a longstanding right which applies in some other countries as well. It guarantees that babies born here of visitors or migrants never end up as stateless and that they are provided for properly while in New Zealand as our Government is committed to provide under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should take away that right only if we have good reason and none has been provided yet. Some women were coming here we are told to exploit free maternity services but that avenue has been blocked off. One or two other women have visited here to give birth with them paying the cost in order to give their babies New Zealand citizenship but that does not amount to a problem that would cause us to change our law. In some ways we should be flattered that people think so highly of us that they will move here for that purpose. 
There are too many unnecessary provisions in this bill and too many that are offensive to our civil liberties for the Greens to support it. I am sure that many people have as I have watched the film that is beginning to screen nationwide tonight: Michael Moore’s new film  
Fahrenheit 9/11 
. We hear a lot in that film about the Patriot Act and the erosion of liberties within the American nation under the Bush administration. We should not be complacent. Some of the provisions in this and other legislation that has slipped through this House in recent years have eroded our individual civil rights and increased the surveillance of the State. That is something to which the Green Party is totally opposed.