Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20089] 
Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill and to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission. The bill has been improved by the committee’s amendments. Part 1 of the bill amends the Citizenship Act which provides for the acquisition and loss of New Zealand citizenship. Under the Act migrants can acquire a grant of citizenship after settling permanently in New Zealand and meeting a number of specified requirements. In the last financial year approximately 21000 people received a grant of citizenship. One of the main purposes in the bill is to increase the standard period of residence in New Zealand for a grant of citizenship from 3 years to 5 years. That time frame will provide a sufficient basis for the assessment of applicants’ suitability for citizenship and commitment to New Zealand. 
The change to the residence requirement received a lot of public comment. Most people were of the view that the 5-year period should not apply to migrants who are currently living in New Zealand. As a result the Government amended the bill to ensure that the change to the residence requirement for citizenship would not apply to people who are already entitled to reside in New Zealand. Applications from those people will be assessed against the existing 3-year residence requirement provided the application is lodged within 5 years of the commencement date. The Government Administration Committee has made a further amendment to those provisions. Citizenship applications from people who applied for a residence permit before the commencement date but whose permits are issued after that date will be assessed against the 3-year requirement. 
The bill currently provides that changes to the requirement for the grant of citizenship will come into force on 1 January 2005 and obviously that will have to be changed. Supplementary Order Paper 359 in my name amends the bill so that those changes will come into force on the commencement date. 
Proposals to amend the citizenship by birth provisions have been incorporated into the bill at the select committee. From 2006 a person born in New Zealand will be a citizen only if at least one of the person’s parents is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. Restricting citizenship by birth will ensure that citizenship and its benefits are limited to people who have a genuine and an ongoing link to New Zealand. That proposal does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. No child will be stateless as a result of that proposal. The New Zealand Citizenship Act provides that every child born in New Zealand will be a citizen if he or she would otherwise be stateless. The select committee has made a change to the proposal to make it clear that a child found abandoned in New Zealand will be a citizen by birth if investigations have failed to establish the identity of at least one of the child’s parents. 
Part 2 of the bill amends the Passports Act which provides for the issue renewal and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents. In the last financial year the Passports Office of the Department of Internal Affairs issued approximately 390000 New Zealand travel documents. The bill reduces the maximum validity of passports from 10 years to 5 years. The purpose of that proposal is to reduce the likelihood of the successful forgery of New Zealand passports. The longer a passport series has been in circulation the greater the chance is that the security features will become outdated and easily altered or duplicated. International experience shows that a 10-year period is now too long because counterfeiting techniques have become more and more sophisticated. 
The bill also provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document in cases where national security is threatened. That provision could be used only in very specific situations where the danger to national security cannot be averted by other means. It also contains a number of procedural safeguards. The decline period is restricted to 12 months and the person denied the travel document may appeal the Minister’s decision to the High Court. The select committee has amended those provisions so that when notifying a person of the decision to decline a travel document the Minister must provide the person with reasons for that decision. That is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 
An important amendment in the bill is the provision for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information for border security and the processing of passengers. That will provide for the disclosure of information for Advance Passenger Processing. That procedure identifies unauthorised passengers before they can depart for New Zealand by enabling airlines to check the person’s travel document details against an up to date electronic record of passport visa and alert information. Currently Advance Passenger Processing’s effectiveness as a passenger risk management system is undermined because it cannot verify the details of New Zealand travel documents. 
This bill will rectify problems with New Zealand citizenship improve border security and reduce the likelihood of the forgery and misuse of New Zealand travel documents. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill exposes the Labour Government’s lack of integrity more than any other legislation has done. Labour has proven to be a fair-weather friend to the new migrant community and especially to the ethnic communities. The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers now make a habit of showering compliments on those communities at their functions— 
Opposition Member 
: And apologising. 
PANSY WONG 
: —and apologising yet last year they brought in this legislation to change the citizenship qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years in a hurry without even planning to front up to those communities and explain why. Eight thousand members of those communities eventually had to resort to signing petitions and letters and they forced the Labour Government to back down on applying the change to permanent residents who are already here. 
The Minister told the House last year that the reason why this Government had decided to increase the qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years was that the period is a bit short compared with international standards. Actually Australia’s requirement is 2 years and if an Australian permanent resident’s overseas work and business commitments can be proven to be of benefit to Australia the Australian Government will reduce that qualifying period from 2 years to 1 year. In Canada the requirement is that one has to be living there for 3 years during the 4 years prior to application. In the United Kingdom one has to be in the UK at the beginning of a period of 5 years. In the USA one has to have been physically present in the USA for at least 13 months in the previous 5 years. So when this change—as proposed—takes place it will make New Zealand the toughest of those five countries. 
Obviously the Labour Government is trying to stop people from leaving New Zealand. At a time when our country faces acute shortages of skilled staff Labour is also making an international appeal for Kiwis living overseas to return home. Well they are not coming home and the reasons for that are obvious: they are concerned about safety race relations high taxes and the education system. But people should not worry; help is on the way. When National’s leader Dr Don Brash becomes the next Prime Minister overseas Kiwis will be coming home—under our policies. Last year 20000 New Zealanders left for greener pastures overseas. In the last 4 years under the Labour Government over 110000 people have left the country. The extension of the qualifying period for a grant of citizenship will hardly address the fundamental problem of how to make our people want to stay here because the fundamental problem is the Labour Government and its policies. 
To add insult to injury when the people who are affected by this legislation decide to apply to become New Zealand citizens they will face a very long wait because of the uncertainty created by the Labour Government. In the Minister’s answer to a written question he told us that the processing period for applications to become a citizen was 15 weeks in 2003 and 2004. Can members guess how long people have to wait nowadays? They have to wait 8 months—8 months of waiting in order to become a New Zealand citizen. As of February this year 21150 applicants were waiting to become New Zealand citizens. One has to question that. Applying to become a New Zealand citizen is a user-pays service. Adults have to pay $460 and children under 16 have to pay $230. Why could the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs not foresee this issue and plan for increased resources to be allocated? I do not expect any sensible answer from the Minister tonight because this Minister the Hon George Hawkins happens to be the Minister of Police as well and we all know that he has adopted the attitude of my three monkeys collection: see no problem hear no problem and say that there is no problem. It is not good enough. That is George—see no problem hear no problem and say that there is no problem. 
During the Committee stage I will put forward an amendment—and I expect the Labour Government to support it—to introduce a mechanism that would emphasise the importance of becoming a New Zealand citizen. We want applicants to learn about New Zealand values and New Zealand systems. For far too long New Zealanders have been complaining that new migrants will not adopt New Zealand values and understand New Zealand systems—because nobody is telling them how to do so. My amendment would introduce a requirement for new migrants to learn about New Zealand values and systems. In Australia Canada the USA and the UK all the rights and obligations of becoming a citizen are explicitly spelled out. I wonder why the Minister will not take advantage of the review of the citizenship requirements to take that into account. 
National is also against the reduction in the validity period of our passports from 10 to 5 years because the Government Administration Committee was told that Australia the United Kingdom etc. have not decided to implement such a policy. We believe that any passport that comes up for renewal should be upgraded to the more sophisticated electronic format but that the shorter validity period would cause more compliance costs for the individuals concerned. 
National does support the measure to tighten up the process so that babies born in New Zealand to overseas citizens do not automatically become entitled to be New Zealand citizens. It is an important message for New Zealand to send to the international community that we value our citizenship. We are satisfied that a process is being put in place to ensure that babies would not be left with a stateless status. 
We also support the provision to give powers to the Minister of Internal Affairs whereby he or she can withhold travel documents if there is a risk to the security of New Zealand. We were satisfied through the select committee process that a procedure will be put in place for the judicial review of that. The change is important in order for the status of New Zealand and its passports to continue to receive the international endorsement that enables us to travel visa-free to over 40 countries. 
This bill has been historic in the sense that it is the first time we have seen the largely passive Asian migrant community in particular decide to speak out. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They were very angry. 
PANSY WONG 
: People were very angry. My very hard-working intelligent colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and I have been holding public meetings throughout the country. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes the incoming Minister of Labour and I have been holding public meetings throughout New Zealand. We have seen thousands of people turn up feeling angry and betrayed because the Labour Ministers and Labour MPs were nowhere to be seen. It is very pleasing to see our various ethnic communities stand up and demand to have their say in influencing policy. 
There are two other major changes on which I want to acknowledge the support of my fellow members of the select committee under the chairpersonship of Dianne Yates. I am grateful to the select committee members for agreeing to amend the transitional period to ensure that people who apply now to become permanent residents are exempt from the new policy. During the Committee process to follow I will also put forward amendments urging members to consider extending the exemptions so that they will apply to long-term business visa holders. I will explain the reasons for that later. 
National supports half the changes proposed by the Labour Government but we will be proposing amendments to the other parts of the legislation. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Pansy Wong for her contribution on the Government Administration Committee. I just want to make three points. The first is that it is not valid to make comparisons with Australia because in Australia it is harder to become a resident but easier to become a citizen. In New Zealand it is the other way around: it is easier to become a resident but harder to become a citizen. That evens itself out. [ 
Interruption 
] If Dr Mapp wishes to take a call I suggest that he do so and not yell across the House. 
The second point relates to the comment that was made about babies. No baby abandoned in New Zealand would be stateless and we conform with international law and convention on that. 
The third point is that this bill makes it much easier for New Zealanders who wish to travel. Our passports which will be renewed within 5 years will have greater validity. We will uphold the reputation that New Zealand has throughout the world for our travel documents and the high reputation of our New Zealand population when we travel. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill addresses some measures that needed to be taken. It is being discussed here tonight simply because of the pressure New Zealand First has applied on immigration issues. New Zealand First has constantly year after year and month after month for the last 5½ years while this Labour Government has been in power been pressuring the Government and making mileage on these issues. I believe that the Government is reluctant to deal with these issues. 
The reason I know it is reluctant to deal with these issues is that I was on the select committee for the purposes of this bill and certain Labour members on that committee were saying that they were very uncomfortable with the bill. They were clearly uncomfortable with the bill. What we have here are two factions—two sides. The reason why this bill has not been advanced more quickly—the reason why it has been languishing on the Order Paper—is that Labour is split on it. Government members know that they are split on this bill. On one side are John Tamihere and 10 members who will back him to the hilt. [ 
Interruption 
] He is probably on the side that is more comfortable with this bill. Ten will back him to the hilt maybe 15 on a good day. 
Then we have the National Party over here which is absolutely too soft and wonders why it is going down in the polls. [ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking specifically to this bill. I am talking about what the people of New Zealand want and the poll tonight shows what they want with New Zealand First’s ratings going up. As Georgina Beyer said a few minutes ago we are only three points behind Don Brash. That is all good news. 
What I am trying to say to the House tonight is that the issues the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill addresses are serious. I will go directly to the guts of the bill and refer to the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins on 29 July 2004 in which he said: “One of the standard requirements for a grant is that the applicant must have been ordinarily resident in New Zealand for the 3 years before application. That is short by international standards and can include time spent here on temporary permits such as work or student permits.” This is insufficient for assessments of applicant suitability for citizenship. He goes on to say: “To rectify it the bill increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants must meet from 3 to 5 years. From 1 January 2005 applicants will need to have been in the country for approximately three-quarters of the 5 years before application including 8 months in each year.” 
What the Minister said was right. He was absolutely correct. But what I am saying is that it has taken 6 years for this Labour Government to heed what the New Zealand First Party has been saying. The Government knows that it is trying to shut down this issue before the election because it has reluctantly had this bill languishing on the Order Paper for the last year or so and now it is trying to ram it through under urgency. 
One of the submitters to the Government Administration Committee was very supportive of the longer residential requirement for citizenship—it is extended from 3 years to 5 years—because he felt there was a major issue with the integrity of our citizenship. He felt the process undermined the integrity with people coming in doing their lag then as soon as 3 years was up shooting off to Australia. He said that this new law will make people look more seriously at coming to New Zealand and staying in New Zealand because of the process being longer. 
I received some extraordinary answers to my questions from certain submitters who were against this bill. I asked one whether he was aware that a lot of European countries have requirements of 10 years and I cited Greece and Italy as examples. I said that the US Australia and the UK are also looking at increasing their requirements to 10 years. I recall the answer the submitter gave me was that it takes 10 years to get divorced in Italy. We all know that is not true and I thought that was an extraordinary answer. Basically the submitters did not have an answer to the questions I asked in that regard. 
Another interesting comment which I heard from Keith Locke the Green Party member in the select committee was that if residential requirements for citizenship were prolonged it would make people more antagonistic. My concern is that if people get more antagonistic because their wait for citizenship is 2 to 3 years longer then I do not think those are the kinds of people we want in our country. If people have to wait another 2 or 3 years to get citizenship and they start smashing the windows of the Immigration Service and running around and being disorderly in our streets because we will not give them citizenship in the 3 years that they believe is their right then those are the kinds of people we do not want in our country. Those are the kinds of people that we do not want. It is outrageous to have somebody in Parliament who says that if we extend the time to 5 years from 3 years people will become more antagonistic. Those are the kinds of people we simply do not want in our country. That is what New Zealand First says and is what New Zealand First has been saying for many many years. 
The Government has been soft on these issues; when it has been reluctant on them—and there are members on the Government side who are shaking their heads. The fact is New Zealand First since 1999 when this Government came into power has been addressing this issue along with a lot of other issues. The Government has not listened and in the 2002 election when New Zealand First brought up immigration as one of the three major issues that we campaigned on it called us racists. The member over there is nodding her head. She called us racists. Now the Government is implementing those issues with this bill. She is voting for this bill tonight—voting for the very issue that she called us racist for. Now those members are starting to realise that the people of New Zealand are serious about these issues and do not want their infrastructures in health roading etc. being pressurised by an increased amount of immigration and so on in respect of the issues I am talking about tonight. 
I want to commend the Government for implementing another couple of issues in the bill. One is to ensure that time spent in the country on temporary permits such as visitor permits will no longer count as a period of residence for citizenship purposes. 
Peter Brown 
: Good good. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: My colleague Peter Brown is saying that this is a good thing and it is. 
As my time is running out I guess I better fly through the issues. Another is to ensure that applicants with serious criminal convictions are prevented from receiving a grant and that applicants with less serious convictions cannot receive a grant for a specified period following conviction. Another interesting issue—one that Keith Locke mentioned in the select committee—was the requirement that applicants take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand in a public citizenship ceremony. The Greens were cautious about that issue. 
I look forward to speaking more on this bill in the Committee stage. New Zealand First will support it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate of the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. This bill shortens the period of passports from 10 years to 5 years and it appears to regularise or make similar a whole lot of ministerial powers around issuing travel documents including temporary documents refugee certifications and so forth. 
So when I read it together with the report of the Government Administration Committee I am trying to get some kind of understanding of the theory that underlies it. What is the concept this Government has of what it means to be a New Zealand citizen? Obviously the much more crucial tests are set out in the law governing immigration in the Immigration Act but this bill reflects the views about what New Zealand citizenship means or should mean. I have a serious concern that this Government regards citizenship as a right or an entitlement of people who happen to come here instead of regarding it as a privilege—a right for those who were born here and a privilege for anyone else. 
 Well I am afraid the bill does not set that out. I was stunned to hear that New Zealand First is planning to vote for it. Because when I look at the most troublesome areas I see that the refugee position is identical to the position— 
Peter Brown 
: We cannot get it 100 percent right! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Peter Brown of New Zealand First is asking for a bit of tolerance. He says that he cannot get it 100 percent right. Well— 
Peter Brown 
: No the Government— 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Government? But I am afraid that Mr Brown got it wrong yesterday as well. Twice in 2 days is getting a bit rough! 
But in this case the refugee travel document powers read in exactly the same terms as the Minister’s powers in relation to other forms of travel documents including passports certificates of identity and emergency travel documents. I am sure that the people who drafted the bill thought that that was tidy. They like to see those sorts of provisions look similar. It means that the legislation is easier to administer if the provisions are not very different but I think that it is simply wrong that the Minister will face Ahmed Zaoui - type objections because when refusing to issue a New Zealand refugee travel document he must establish on reasonable grounds—in other words the courts are openly invited to second-guess the Minister’s reasoning—that the person is a danger and intends to be a terrorist to proliferate weapons of mass destruction or to deal in unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage. 
I believe that those tests may be perfectly appropriate for restricting the travel plans of New Zealanders. People in this country should expect a very high threshold before any politician—any Minister—can interfere with their rights of free travel. But to impose that exact same extremely high threshold on someone who has absolutely no claim on New Zealand other than our humanity is quite wrong. ACT believes that to provide that the Minister’s reasoning has to pass that very high threshold of “unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand carried out for purposes of commercial or economic gain” is selling New Zealand citizenship very short. For example that would not cover the Islamic militant who just decided to introduce foot-and-mouth disease because that would not be designed or carried out for purposes of commercial or economic gain. 
Why have such a ridiculously high standard? Why not just say: “Look mate we’re a humane country but if you give us the slightest grounds for reservation go somewhere else.” There is no right to live in New Zealand for anyone who was not born here—no right whatsoever. This bill sets up an absurd threshold of refugee entitlement unless we can prove they are absolutely rotten. That is quite wrong. 
It goes further. To withhold that travel document the Minister must also establish that there is no other way of effectively averting the danger to the security of New Zealand. Well of course the first thing the refugee is going to say is: “You can avert this. Just put a bracelet around my ankle and tell me that I can’t move outside this suburb.” There would be many ways by which the court would be satisfied that there is some other means of averting the serious danger. This legislation does not state anything about cost. It does not state that the method of averting the danger should be for reasonable cost. It states “cannot be effectively averted by other means.” It should have stated of course “any reasonable means” even if one accepted this test for the first stage. 
Then the bill states that the Minister cannot refuse the travel document unless that refusal will prevent or effectively impede the ability of the person to be a terrorist or carry out other damage. That is an incredibly high threshold. It is a perfectly appropriate threshold for a New Zealander but unless I have misunderstood it will apply to people who are not New Zealanders and about whom we may know very little or we may have only suspicion. Suspicion should be enough. Being here should be a privilege and I cannot believe that this Government would come up with a bill like this after the $2 million of expense on Ahmed Zaoui and all of that aggro and put its head back into the same noose. In fact it has put not its head but New Zealand’s back into that noose. 
Then the Minister has to justify the refusal to the refugee. He or she “must notify the person in writing of the refusal and the reasons for it;”. It is unbelievable. I cannot understand this. The experience we have had seems to mean nothing to this Government. I can only assume it is yet another instance of the Government jumping to the order of its foreign masters and those who draft international conventions— 
Shane Ardern 
: Whereabouts? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They come from places like Sudan—havens of human rights! They get on these committees—they probably never go home because it is too ghastly at home—and they swan around making up rules to make the lives of those who abide by the rules a misery while their own countries regard them as simply another form and means of warfare. I cannot understand why the Government Administration Committee did not reject this bill. It is quite possible—and I understand the difficulty when one comes to something without having seen the background—that Dianne Yates Shane Ardern Steve Chadwick the Hon David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch were persuaded that all this was fine— 
Shane Ardern 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry I say to the member I am looking at the minority view now. The National minority view does oppose several changes but as I see it it opposes only the shift from a 10-year to a 5-year passport. There is far more to oppose in this bill. There is far more that we should be raising as problems. 
I have to say again that it just suggests that the opposition of New Zealand First to a lot of the denial of this unpatriotic stuff is just slogans. When I heard that they were going to vote for this bill after the speeches and the fiery questioning from the Rt Hon Winston Peters in this House I cannot understand why all those Grey Power people are still in love with Winston Peters. If they could only listen and if they only knew how he voted and could compare it with what he says when he is talking to them at election time they would realise that they are being two-timed. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Members have probably read the minority report put forward by Matt Robson and myself. I think the National members who have spoken and those who are about to speak will admit that those comments reflect the submissions more than the majority select committee report. The Minister George Hawkins said in his speech that there was a lot of public comment. But he seemed to imply that that public comment was only in connection with the retrospectivity of the bill—a concern that it would apply to people who are currently in New Zealand. Whereas if one listened to the submissions sure there was significant and large concern about retrospectivity but there was concern about a lot of other things in the bill as well. Very few submissions supported the bill. 
I want to ask the Government and anyone else who supports the bill tonight to explain to us why we have to go ahead and extend the qualifying period from residence to citizenship from 3 years to 5 years. I sat on the Government Administration Committee and I did not hear a good reason for that. We heard about security concerns but I do not think we really thought that it takes 5 years to spot a terrorist in New Zealand; that was not the reason. The committee threw in another reason about being comparable with overseas jurisdictions but as Pansy Wong has pointed out it does not hold water. 
 We have to realise and this is what we found in the select committee that extending the residency requirement from 3 years to 5 years is causing a huge amount of human heartache. We heard many submissions from people from Somalia and Iraq and from Sikh groups who explained the difficulties they face now in the time it takes them to get citizenship and the even greater difficulties they will face if the qualifying period is extended from 3 to 5 years. 
There has been reference including from the previous speaker to refugee travel documents. David Ryken an immigration lawyer told the committee that those documents are “useless”. Refugees cannot use them to go overseas. A lot of refugee people who have been here for a while and have refugee status want to make contact with very close relatives who are dispersed around the world. As a result of the chaos in their own country their families have dispersed and the refugees in New Zealand find that they cannot travel overseas on those travel documents even though they have been nicely set out by our Government and given to them. 
One example of this was given by an Iraqi who told the Government Administration Committee that his travel document provided by the New Zealand Government would not even allow him to get to his niece’s wedding in Australia because Australia like America does not accept those travel documents. The lack of a passport for those people and the time to get a passport which has been put out even further under the bill adds hugely to the trauma of refugees and their feelings of isolation. One submission by Adam Awad and several other refugees in Wellington made the point that article 15(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a nationality. In all practical senses refugees have no nationality left to them. In the case of countries like Somalia there is no national Government. Many have spent upwards of a decade in refugee camps around the world. To deny them official citizenship for a further 5 years is from a human rights perspective both inhumane and unjust. 
David Ryken the immigration lawyer also told the committee that the extension of the qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years was doing New Zealand in the eye as regards attracting skilled migrants. As he explained and he has had a lot of connection with migrants we are in a competitive international marketplace as regards attracting skilled people. Under this bill the best migrants will be more likely to go elsewhere—to Australia—rather than come to New Zealand and hang around for years to get citizenship here. 
The Chinese community was particularly upset in that regard and made submissions to the select committee. As Pansy Wong has pointed out a petition on that issue was signed by 8000 people. One issue they raised was the question of long-term business visas. The expectation and the structure is that business visas would automatically run into residency and into citizenship and not to allow business visas to be part of the qualifying period for citizenship is putting off so many people coming in under that particular visa. 
There is another bad provision in the bill which the Minister referred to. A Supplementary Order Paper was introduced that would deny automatic citizenship to babies born here and the select committee never heard a good reason for that. It would lead to significant problems for people and attracted criticism in the select committee as being somewhat contrary to the constitutional conventions of this country as well. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation submissions stated: “It is contrary to parliamentary convention for a Supplementary Order Paper to introduce major new substantive provisions to a bill.” 
The Supplementary Order Paper came in as the select committee was sitting and because it came in so late in the piece most submitters were not able to see it before they put in their submissions to the select committee. The Supplementary Order Paper was unnecessary. Do we have an emergency on our hands with all kinds of babies being born here and doing nasty things to us? It did not require a Supplementary Order Paper to be brought in in that way. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation said that that violates the essence of the Standing Orders and “amounts to an abuse of the democratic and parliamentary processes.” 
There was also the problem of whether we would get a Bill of Rights audit on the Supplementary Order Paper and late in the piece we did get an audit but it was quite contentious. For instance the Auckland District Law Society said: “Removing the right to citizenship by birth punishes immigrant children not their parents and may contravene articles 38 24 and 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of particular concern is the right of a child to the highest obtainable standard of health and the right to education.” Giving a baby citizenship will guarantee it free health treatment regardless of the circumstances of its parents. 
The Ministry of Justice’s response in the Bill of Rights audit to that sort of argument was pitiful. The audit stated: “Children born in New Zealand who are not granted citizenship will still be able to receive treatment for life-threatening conditions as hospitals are required to provide acute services regardless of the ability to pay.” So the Ministry of Justice is saying that it is in accord with the Convention on the Rights of the Child for babies to get very sick as long as they get free hospital treatment when they are on the point of death. Even then will the Ministry of Justice guarantee that the parents do not get a bill for the hospital treatment of the life-threatening condition? Of course the ministry will not. 
There is also a new power in the bill for the Minister of Internal Affairs to take away a New Zealander’s passport on national security grounds. This was strongly challenged particularly by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. One of their lawyers Rodney Harrison QC said: “The rights to a passport and freedom of movement in and out of one’s own country are fundamental human rights recognised in our Bill of Rights and international law. Until very recently citizens of this country have never been at risk of having these rights removed or curtailed. Such steps have rightly been seen as a mark of totalitarian regimes not New Zealand’s.” He also complained that when someone does take judicial challenge to the passport being taken away from him or her there is a problem in even getting all the information used against that person because it can be “classified” under this bill and not made freely available to those affected. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 There is almost nothing in that last speech that I would agree with other than the silence after the member concluded and resumed his seat. I would like to say one thing and that is this: he talked an awful lot about the rights of this person and the rights of that person but never once did he talk about the responsibilities that go along with being a New Zealand citizen. Quite frankly that is exactly the point. What we have to do is go back to what matters most which is to appreciate what being a New Zealander is all about—to enjoy the privileges of being a New Zealander but to also be aware of the responsibilities attendant on that privilege. People who talk only about the rights are people who see rights as being something to be handed out like lollies to one and all without any sense of responsibility for what that actually means. I think that is an absolute farce and a joke. 
United Future will be supporting this legislation for a number of reasons. First up the amount of time applicants must spend in New Zealand before they can apply for citizenship has been increased from 3 years to 5 years. An applicant needs to be here for 1350 days of that 5 years which is approximately 75 percent of it. That requirement indicates the intent of anybody coming to live here that he or she wants to be here and wants to participate and be a productive member of our community. That is fair and right. 
The bill provides that time spent on temporary work permits or visitor permits will not be included in the 5-year period and that makes sense. A lot of people come here for holidays and short stints. We all do this overseas—the OE—and to think that that counts for a desire to be a part of that community is grossly mistaken. That time should not be taken into consideration and that is fair enough. 
In terms of assessing whether the applicant is of good character applicants with serious criminal convictions attracting 5-plus years’ imprisonment generally will not receive a grant of citizenship. Those with less serious convictions of less than 5 years’ imprisonment may be considered if the offence was committed more than 7 years ago and those who have not had a sentence of imprisonment may be considered if the offence was committed more than 3 years ago. Personally I would like to see the bill toughened up much further than that but I am happy to live with this provision because at least it opens up the possibility of being able to screen individuals who are coming to live here. I am of the opinion that any stint in a prison overseas is good enough for those people to have their arses slung out of New Zealand—we should not be allowing them in here at all. 
To aid the administration process the Citizenship Office will now have restricted access to immigration information in making its decision. The Minister may rescind the approval of an application if the applicant no longer meets requirements and generally applicants must take an oath at a public ceremony. Well why not? That is the least we ought to expect from people wanting to take up our citizenship. [ 
Interruption 
] It is patriotic. That is quite right. It is one thing to expect people to front up and say that they are now part of the community that they owe their allegiance to this country and that they forego their previous allegiance. That does not mean that they would have to give up their culture or give up all of the things they learnt from wherever they came but it does mean that they put New Zealand first because it is the home of their choice and we have decided to accept them. The fact that there is a political party by that name is a bit unfortunate but seeing that everybody knows it as “Winston First” it does not really matter. 
The Citizenship Act is amended to provide that a person will be presumed to be the father of a person if he was in a de facto relationship with the person’s mother at the time of conception. To be born here will no longer be sufficient in itself to gain citizenship. Some people have criticised that provision but it makes sense. Why the hell should anybody coming over here for a holiday with the specific intent of giving birth here be automatically granted citizenship? That makes no sense whatsoever. What vetting process do we have at present? In effect we say that people can come into our country drop a kid and all of a sudden have the automatic privilege of being a New Zealander. Quite frankly that is not good enough. People have taken advantage of that in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. We need to close that loophole. 
The key amendments to the Passports Act—I talked previously about the key amendments to the Citizenship Act—are fourfold. New Zealand travel document information can be disclosed to identify unauthorised passengers before they depart for New Zealand. That gives us a proactive capacity to do something about the characters who want to come to our country. I think that is right and proper. We should be vetting the people whom we invite to our homes. 
Passports will be valid for only 5 years reduced from 10 to prevent forgery. At first I was uncomfortable with that provision for a whole range of reasons. I thought that the cost would be too high and that it would be a real imposition particularly on our senior citizens who have the time to do the travelling and I thought about what other costs would be imposed on them. But having been privileged to see where passports are made I understand exactly what goes into making a passport forgery-free or at least what helps the passport makers to be ahead of the game because forgers across the world are very quick in their ability to emulate what we provide as our passport. We have to keep the integrity of the New Zealand passport otherwise it becomes worthless. I saw first-hand the technologies that were employed and I understand the need for this provision to be included in the bill. 
 So unfortunately and regrettably the cost will go up. But it is a cost worth bearing because our passports will end up becoming worthless if we do not. They will be a joke and will not be accepted in a lot of other countries in the world. 
The Minister can refuse to issue or can cancel New Zealand travel documents on the grounds of national security and the court can forbid the issue of a passport. I do not think that anybody in his or her rational mind could possibly disagree with that provision. It makes perfect sense that we have the capacity to say no if we have other information that basically states that we should not allow someone to have the privilege of becoming a New Zealander. 
Finally to formalise current practice provisions have been introduced to allow the issue renewal and cancellation of refugee travel documents. Those documents are different from passports certificates of identity or emergency travel documents and they facilitate a refugee’s international travel. Again that comes back to a fundamental point: New Zealand is our home and we have the right to restrict or invite whoever comes here— 
Keith Locke 
: For whatever reason. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: —for whatever reason. That point is absolutely fundamental. We do not expect people from the rest of the world to be able to come here willy-nilly without our having the ability to make some assessment of whether we want them here. I think that this legislation goes a long way towards doing exactly that. 
United Future will be supporting this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well as I understand it only the Greens are upset about this legislation because they would like to open the doors to everybody who might aspire to their beliefs. 
Craig McNair 
: Open up the floodgates. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: We do not want to do that. 
We are a country of foreigners. We have all migrated here—whether we are Moriori Maori Pacific Islander or trace our lineage from Europe America or wherever. We have all come here from somewhere else. We need to protect the integrity of the New Zealand border. This bill will do that. United Future will happily support this legislation. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I have been a proud member of the Labour-Progressive Government led by Helen Clark and Jim Anderton for 5 years. We have a coalition agreement that in its essence moves towards free education again at a tertiary level and free highest-quality health care for New Zealanders premised on a goal of full employment. All those goals I stand by and all those are in our agreement. 
But as a Progressive Party member I cannot support the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill before us tonight. It is unnecessary in terms of its treatment of our migrant communities that make up a small but very significant part of our population which is always being added to and is always changing. I cannot support the erosion of the rule of law in order to allow an administrative procedure whereby a Minister of the Government can withdraw the passport of a New Zealander and overturn the basic principle that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it has a reason to act against a citizen. I do not agree that that administrative measure should be turned upon citizens or other persons with travel documents so that they have to go to the High Court to prove why they should have their passports or refugee documents. 
In economic terms the bill does not make sense. In Australia our closest competitor in terms of trade the period for getting citizenship as has been acknowledged tonight is 2 years. In every other form of our relationship with Australia we are trying to move to a situation in which we as a country can compete more closely with that country. We are putting up a barrier or a hurdle for the many skilled migrants around New Zealand whom New Zealand needs constantly and whom all members of Parliament I am sure at different times have praised for their contributions to our country. Of course migrants will choose Australia. Australia says that if they meet its tough entry requirements and become residents within 2 years they will be assessed as to whether they can take the next step citizenship. Here in New Zealand we are going the other way in moving that period to 5 years. But it will be more than 5 years because as any member who has had to put in an application for citizenship will know it takes a year to 18 months and the time to wait will therefore be much more than the 5-year period. 
I do not speak with anger about the Labour Party but I do make this plea to the many people I have worked with for many years in that party. The Labour Party has earned the reputation of being the defender of migrant communities. The Labour Party because of its connection to the labour movement has earned a reputation for its defence of the broadest democratic rights. But this bill moves away from that. 
It moves in the direction of parties like New Zealand First and United Future. What do they base their type of philosophy on? Their philosophy is based on dividing people in New Zealand and on casting slurs on people because they are migrants and have a name that can be used to vilify them. I heard the representative from New Zealand First ask tonight: if migrants do not like this bill and smash windows what do we think of people like that? For the member to suggest that it is the reputation of migrant communities in New Zealand to incite violence—as New Zealand First’s leader often suggests against migrant people in New Zealand—is a bad path to go down and we will rue that day if we do so. 
The founders of the Labour Party Harry Holland and Michael Joseph Savage would never have capitulated to that form of narrow chauvinism. They would never have capitulated to the sabre-rattling of the United Future representative who talked about the loyalty of New Zealanders. People do not prove their loyalty to a country by one particular form of allegiance or speech. People show their allegiance to the place they are by being members of the community and by making a contribution. 
Members of Parliament should look back at the speeches they have made at the many ethnic functions we have attended where they extolled those communities whatever their background for their wonderful clothes food and costumes. I suspect that when many of those members said those things they did not mean a damn thing at all. Now they go to the other side of town and say that those migrants need to prove their loyalty to New Zealand and say exactly where their allegiance lies. 
The legislation is a backward step. First of all whereas people who have made the journey to New Zealand in order to contribute to this country have had to wait 3 years before they could apply for citizenship we are now saying that we do not trust them and that they will have to wait 5 years. What form of nation building is that? Secondly we have the gall to say to people who marry a New Zealand citizen that whereas their fitness to be a New Zealand citizen could once be assessed after a period of 2 years they will now have to wait a further 3 years before they can make an application. We are saying to people who have journeyed to New Zealand in order to have a work permit—perhaps a student who is studying to the level of a PhD or something of that nature that takes many years and who has made a contribution to the country—that that contribution will not be taken into account and that they will have to wait 5 years for citizenship. It does not make economic sense. It does not make for social cohesion in our country. 
I now turn to the other provisions of the bill relating to our passports and travel documents. Administrative power is being given that will take away from the courts the normal practice that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed some kind of offence and therefore does not deserve a passport. Of course people will call it the Ahmed Zaoui provision for that reason. Whether or not Ahmed Zaoui has New Zealand residence Algerian residence or some other form of nationality there has always been a principle that any person in New Zealand will be given the same rights under law. You-know-what? Do members not want that principle for New Zealand citizens who are migrants in other countries? Did we not want it for the man who died in a prison on the Ivory Coast? We are asking whether he got natural justice. Do we not want it for the many New Zealanders who live in my home country of Australia and who make up 2 percent of its prison population? People would hope that those New Zealanders had had a fair trial in Australia and I do as well. Then why in New Zealand are we setting two forms of justice? We are making a very big mistake. 
The Israelis who were caught here falsifying passports and trying to dupe the New Zealand public and the New Zealand system were caught and prosecuted under the law we have now. We did not need a new law; we did not need new provisions. We had strong enough provisions to catch them. All we needed was an investigative procedure. 
Many New Zealanders came before the select committee but I struggle to remember anybody who said that this was a good bill. There must have been one or two. But those submitters who were talking to us were New Zealand citizens. Did it matter whether they had been born in India? Did it matter that someone had been born in China? Did it matter that like me someone had been born in Australia? They were I hope considered New Zealand citizens. 
Of course people came before us who were born New Zealanders. The people who had been born here were the most vociferous in asking why we are taking New Zealand citizenship away from children born in New Zealand when we have given that right for many many years without any problem for one basic principle—to protect the child. Members of Parliament will probably know of cases whereby people have struggled for 5 6 7 8 9 or 10 years in legal battles to prove their right to stay in New Zealand. 
Certainly members of the Labour Party know such cases because in my days in the Labour Party all members represented communities where migrants gave big support to and raised funds for people elected to Parliament. When I was in the Labour Party we always protected the rights of children born here to go to school to have health care and to be considered New Zealand citizens. 
On the economic level this bill does not make sense. To use a market argument through this bill we will lose a competitive edge. On a social cohesiveness level the bill does not make sense because we are dividing people and making different categories of New Zealand citizens. With respect for the rule of law in terms of our passports I say that not even in the Cold War when people feared nuclear annihilation and invasion by the Russians did the Government ever demand the right to take a New Zealand passport. The Government relied on using the law and on having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that passport should be taken in order to meet the needs of those times. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 We have just heard the traditional left rump of the Labour Party. It was interesting to listen to that speech tonight because that member—former Labour then NewLabour then Alliance and now Progressive— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Regressive. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Progressive—I know that that is an oxymoron in this particular case but it is the Progressive Party. It was a very interesting speech made by Mr Robson who knows a little bit about this issue. 
I say to the member and to the Labour Party that this process is one of balance. I acknowledge the officials here tonight who assisted the Government Administration Committee through that process. This is an issue of balance. On one hand we have to make sure that people who come to New Zealand meet a certain standard. I acknowledge the comments made by Stephen Franks earlier on. It is a privilege to be in New Zealand not a right—unless one is born here. It is a privilege. This is our country and our home and it is a privilege for people to be here. But on the other hand New Zealand is a country made up of migrants. The point that Mr Robson made was a good one. Michael Joseph Savage would turn in his grave if he could see where the Labour Party is trying to take New Zealand today. 
I say to Mr Robson that there is a good reason for that too. Most of the migrants in those days were Anglo-Saxon English from mother England. They joined the trade unions and the Labour Party—and we all know what John Tamihere has to say about them today. We all know how much control unions have over the Labour Party today and John Tamihere is not too keen on that. 
We also know that as time has moved on New Zealand as a European country has almost been an accident of navigation. Captain Cook’s boat found it first. It is as simple as that. The first people to settle here were from an Anglo-Saxon background. The reality is that our near neighbours are Asian. It is an inevitable circumstance in a modern world that we will have more immigrants from that part of the world. At the moment 21000 people have an application lodged for citizenship of New Zealand. That is appalling given the Labour Party’s traditional liberal view of that process. It is equally appalling that 8000 people had to petition Parliament to bring about the kinds of changes that are being proposed. Eight thousand people had to petition Parliament under a Labour Government. 
Pansy Wong 
: Asian people. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: They were mainly Asian? Mainly Asian people had to petition the Parliament to bring about the changes and we have a Labour Government! It is incomprehensible as Mr Robson quite clearly stated. 
There are other aspects of this bill of course that the National Party was not convinced of. Members of the Government Administration Committee were not convinced that those changes were in the best interests of moving forward. One of them was the argument that as modern technology is moving so quickly passports now are easily forged and therefore we needed to move forward to a system of renewing passports every 5 years so we can keep ahead of the process. Even though technically that argument was robust there was no evidence to say that that was happening. So the National Party was not in support of that particular part of the proposal. 
It was equally disturbing to note that last year 20000 New Zealanders holding New Zealand citizenship left this country. We have to ask why that was. There is one simple answer. We have a Labour Government that will tax them and tax them until they find a country that wants them and values their contribution and their ability to get on in society and do well. One of those countries of course that has been the beneficiary of that gain has been our near neighbour Australia. Australia has only a 2-year time frame for people to gain citizenship. This is despite the Labour Government starting with Jim Anderton who belongs to the Progressive Party—the oxymoron in the New Zealand Parliament—that supports the Labour Party. 
His clarion call on becoming the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in a previous Labour-led Government was: “Come home Kiwis. We will fix it up. This is your home country. Come back to New Zealand. You have a new Government now and I’m the Deputy Prime Minister.” At the same time I hasten to add he said: “I’m going to lower petrol prices.” What has happened? Every year 20000 New Zealanders go overseas and they do not intend to come back. They are telling us overwhelmingly that this Labour Government is the reason. 
I say to the House tonight that this legislation is overdue in some aspects and too heavy-handed in others. It will be interesting when the Minister takes a call during the Committee stage to see whether the bill will end up in the same form as at present. The National Party looks forward to that process before committing ourselves to what we will end up doing. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have a few words for my colleagues who have spoken before me. First I would like to talk to the United Future member. He made New Zealand First a bit of a target by saying that it is “Winston First”. I say to the honourable members over there that we would prefer that to being known as “Dunne First” as they will be after the next election. 
I have to say that Matt Robson is prepared to sell New Zealand’s citizenship very cheaply. He would give it away. I have a few words that I would like Matt Robson to take note of: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Who said that? It was President Kennedy. After listening to Matt Robson’s speech I think it is pretty pertinent that he take note of that and digest it. 
This country is a magnificent country. It has three major assets. 
Darren Hughes 
: Helen Clark Michael Cullen and Jim Anderton. 
PETER BROWN 
: No I am talking about assets not exports. The first major asset is its physical beauty. Members do not need me to explain that. Does anybody disagree with that? Does anybody over there want to change that? Does anybody in the National Party want to change the physical beauty of this country? The second major asset this country has is that New Zealanders are basically and fundamentally hard-working enterprising and very friendly people. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody want to change that? The third asset this country has and let me remind members to think about it very very carefully is that it does not have too many of those hard-working friendly people. It has a very small population and that is an asset. 
Does anybody recall hearing of a place called Wood Green in the UK? It has made the news this very evening. A terrorist was locked up there. He was producing evil chemicals to put on cars and if people touched them they would die. The commentator on Television One said tonight that if he had got away with it the situation would have been greater than 9/11. Why do I mention this? That scumbag—and that is the only word I can use—escaped. He got to Manchester. He stabbed a detective who was trying to arrest him. 
Brian Connell 
: Killed him. 
PETER BROWN 
: He killed him and stabbed many other policemen and seriously injured them. I do not know whether he was born in the UK but I guess that if he was his parents came from somewhere. 
But most important there was a description of Wood Green. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should not make a joke of these sorts of issues. This bill is the Government’s bill to tighten up on people coming to this country. I went to school in Wood Green. I can tell you that those few years ago it was quite a different place from what it is now. I can say to you that New Zealand First— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mind you drawing me back to the bill but if you are going to allow idiots like that Minister to perform like that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I was not bringing the member back to the bill. I was referring the member to the fact that twice he brought the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have to defend myself. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaking in defence of my colleague from New Zealand First the Minister who has just entered the Chamber will be unaware that this bill has progressed since 7 p.m. in a manner in which all speakers at the second reading have been allowed a fair go without a barrage of mindless abuse coming from Ministers who have only just turned up in the House. I ask that you apply to Mr Brown the standard that other speakers have enjoyed at this second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated. The reason Mr Brown was pulled up by myself was that he twice brought me into the debate. That was the only reason. I have made a ruling. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no time did I refer to the comments you made about the reason Mr Brown brought you into the debate. I made no reference to that at all and I would not dispute your ruling in any sense. I raised a fresh point of order relating to the interjections coming from the back bench of the Labour Party and the fact that a Minister who has recently arrived in the Chamber has decided to interject on a member when the rest of this bill has been heard in comparative silence and other members of Parliament have been given a fair go. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brown was dealing quite adequately with the interjection. It was just when he brought me into the debate that I responded. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the point of order. 
Hon Annette King 
: It is a fresh point of order. When you were on your feet hearing that point of order the member who raised it interjected the entire time you were trying to rule. If he is going to raise a point of order then he also ought to obey the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I appreciate that. Can I just say to members that there is a ruling in the House that when a point of order is being taken and being heard it is to be done in silence. 
PETER BROWN 
: I need to explain—and I accept your ruling—that when I was responding to the Hon Rick Barker I did say “you” but I meant him. I said it twice and I apologise. 
New Zealand First is well on record as wanting strict criteria to be applied to people who come to this country. We want them to come here in good health. That is for obvious reasons. We are not talking about coughs and colds; we are talking about basic health. Why should a person come here heavily diseased with whatever and be an expense to the taxpayer? That we think is reasonable sound social and economic policy. We want people to come here who are able to speak English. That is sound common sense. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: My in-laws cannot speak English. 
PETER BROWN 
: I understand that the member’s in-laws cannot speak English because as an Australian he struggles at times himself. So there are exceptions to everything. 
New Zealand First wants people who come here to be crime-free—people who were law-abiding citizens where they came from and who are intending to be that here. We like the 5-year requirement before a person can get citizenship because we think it is a good period of time to be crime-free before— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: You don’t think you just parrot. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member should put his brain in gear from time to time and listen. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Thinking requires analysis not parroting. 
PETER BROWN 
: My patience is wearing a bit thin. I am prepared to deal with the member but I just note that I am— 
Hon Annette King 
: You’re getting tired. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes and I am getting less tolerant. New Zealand First believes that a 5-year period for people to live here before they get citizenship is a reasonable time frame and that within that time frame they must be crime-free. If they want to get involved in crime within that time frame then they get a one-way ticket out. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the member who keeps yapping over there that I am prepared to give him a one-way ticket out. 
New Zealand First believes that there is an obligation on anybody and everybody who comes to this country and who wants to live here permanently to assimilate into the country. By that I do not mean that they have to give up their national dress and such things but I do believe that they need to make the effort to become part of New Zealand society in the wider sense. I see the Minister of Immigration sitting there. I think he nodded in agreement. I have to say that he has learnt the lesson the hard way. If he had listened to us he would have nodded in agreement much more quickly. 
We are taking people into this country now who come from war-torn countries—countries savaged by war. 
Dianne Yates 
: Might even be from Britain. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes and Britain might be one of them but there is a good deal worse than Britain. People who are under the stress of living in war-torn countries might not make good New Zealand citizens and we should possibly examine that criteria—where they come from. 
Hon Annette King 
: For whom does that bell toll? It tolls for thee. 
PETER BROWN 
: It tolls for thee? I have frequently been accused by that Labour Government of being an immigrant and wanting to close the door after me. [ 
Interruption 
] And those members are pretty close. When I came here I had to be in good health and I have maintained that. I had to have a job and I have had a job ever since I have been here. I had to make a commitment to this country and although I am a soccer man I have taken up rugby. I can see that the Labour members over there are very tired and in a very humorous mood so I think I might conclude my speech and have a little bit more fun during the Committee stage. 
Amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Citizenship Act 1977 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would like the Committee to consider the amendments I am putting forward. They fall into three major categories. I agree with previous speakers who have said that to become a New Zealand citizen is a very important and privileged decision. I want the Government and others to consider supporting my amendment which proposes that before an applicant is accepted to become a New Zealand citizen he or she should attend a compulsory citizenship induction course administered by the Department of Internal Affairs where the rights and obligations of becoming a New Zealand citizen would be learnt properly. 
I also want the Minister in the chair the Hon George Hawkins to take a call because even though he told us last year that this bill had to be passed in 2004 we are obviously now in April 2005 and there seems to be little need for that urgency. The Minister said that the starting date for Part 4 and Part 8 will now be the commencement date but I think that will still cause a lot of uncertainty in the communities affected. I have proposed a whole raft of amendments to suggest that we state a specific day—say 1 May 2005—to introduce some certainty. 
I would also like the Committee to support my amendment with regard to the time that a temporary visa holder spends in New Zealand. Let us think about it. The export education sector we are told contributes $2 billion a year into the economy. Students usually come to study at high school and then go on to tertiary education which means that on average a student would spend 5 years here before maybe converting their visa to a work visa and then becoming a permanent resident. That means that by the time they are allowed to apply to become New Zealand citizens they would already have spent some 5 to 6 years in New Zealand. 
 I understand that the Hon Matt Robson is moving an amendment to revert to the current situation whereby the temporary visa holder’s time-span in New Zealand would count towards the qualifying period. I am a reasonable person and my amendment states that at least half the time such people spend in New Zealand should be counted towards that. I hope to hear feedback from the Minister. 
I also raise the issue relating to a different group of permit holder—the long-term business visa holder. Those people come to New Zealand for the express purpose of experiencing whether within 2 years they can successfully establish a business. They come with the sole intention that they will be entitled to become permanent resident visa holders upon proving that their business venture is being implemented. I hope that the Minister can look favourably at that group of people and say that the retrospective nature of the change will not apply to that group of visa holders as well. I understand that there are probably 2000 to 3000 of them and given the fact that they have uprooted themselves and made a serious investment in New Zealand by commencing business paying GST and contributing to New Zealand I hope that the Minister can look favourably at the amendment I have proposed and say that they will be allowed to be exempt from being subject to the new extended provision and can be considered under the current requirement. 
I really think that the Minister should take a call at least to give us some feedback on his reaction towards the raft of amendments proposed by myself. They are very considered and deserve some attention from the Minister. I look forward to his contribution. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on Part 1 I want to raise the issue of the increase from 3 to 5 years in the standard period of residence. The reason I want to raise it is that the National Party the Progressive Party the Green Party and I believe the ACT party are opposed to it. Is the ACT party opposed to the increase from 3 to 5 years? It does not matter whether it is anyway. The National Party the Progressives and the Greens at least are opposed to the increase. 
Last year I had the pleasure of being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee trip to Australia. When we were in a meeting in Canberra with some Ministers and Government MPs one of the thorniest issues—one of the issues that has created tension in our relationship with Australia—was the 3-year requirement and also wider issues of immigration and the different path that New Zealand has chosen to take in the last 20 years compared with Australia. Yet we wonder why about 3 years ago the Australian Government restricted the reciprocal benefits agreement that we had had for so many years! We had an amazing relationship with our trans-Tasman brother—or sister if members want to call it that—for many years. It was probably one of the closest intercountry relationships the world has ever seen. I would not say we have destroyed that because New Zealand First was against doing that but New Zealand Governments of the last 20 years have taken us down a path of destroying the great relationship we had with Australia. That has formed a lot of tension in these areas and I wanted to bring that up with the Committee. 
Keeping with the issue of the increase from 3 to 5 years I was berated by the Progressive member Matt Robson for saying what Keith Locke had said. Keith Locke had said that if the citizenship process were prolonged it could make people more antagonistic. Matt Robson berated me and said I was marginalising people and stereotyping them but I was just quoting what another member had said. I then had my counter-argument to that which was my concern that people who get more antagonistic because of having to wait another couple of years are not the kinds of people we want. I think that is a fair reasonable common-sense sensible argument. I do not see how anybody could disagree with that argument. 
Another issue that I want to raise in the Committee is the comment made by Stephen Franks from the ACT party that this bill is unpatriotic. Well I want to allude to a couple of points in Part 1 that I believe make the bill quite the opposite—a patriotic bill. First there is the requirement for applicants to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand at a public citizenship ceremony. I believe that is very patriotic. I was watching television the other night and saw a citizenship ceremony that the Prime Minister had attended. I think it is a great thing when people say: “I am becoming a New Zealander. I am becoming a New Zealander first. I am going to put my country first and be proud of the country I represent.” I believe that the patriotic thing to do is to go to a public ceremony and say: “I am a New Zealander.” I think that is patriotic. I think that is great. When somebody says this bill is an unpatriotic bill I just allude to that fact and say it is very patriotic. 
Another argument I have against this bill being an unpatriotic bill is the fact that it provides for the Citizenship Office to have restricted access to immigration information for the purpose of conducting citizenship investigations assessing whether— 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is clear that the parties are taking positions to pass this bill in its entirety. The amendments that I have proposed as a Progressive member state that I believe the status quo should stay in relation to the time period for people gaining citizenship. I point members to the fact that we have had this position for many years in New Zealand. It could have been 2 years 1 year or it might have been 4 years but presumably when a time period was set between residence and citizenship there was a policy behind it in terms of assessing whether someone was a suitable citizen for New Zealand. 
Now that the period is going to 5 years I have not heard in the select committee or in the Committee of the whole House tonight any valid policy reason for going from 3 to 5 years. The member from New Zealand First who has just spoken hinted that it was pressure from Australia. We have been assured by Australian officials and the Australian Government that there was never any demand. I think the Minister himself may have spoken and said that there was never any demand or blackmail from Australia that we should set a period of 5 years. As far as I can see it is internally generated. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to one aspect of this matter. I for my sins was a member of the Labour Party before 1990. Then we had a parting of the ways when the church was not quite broad enough at that particular time. We were obviously praying to different Gods and ours was not Roger Douglas at that time. The Labour Party that I remembered fought these types of proposal. They came up many times—from whence I do not know but largely from parties of the right to put more and more restrictions on people who were migrants. Much of it was electorally driven at times from the type of speech we heard from Peter Brown suggesting words like “floodgates”. When such words are applied to migrants and refugees people do not have in mind the white European they have in mind a certain type of person usually Asian usually from the Middle East. It is a reprehensible term. 
 That is what drives that type of demand. Economics do not drive it. The only part of economics that drives it is the consideration that if people come here and then leave for Australia after 3 years we are losing them. Well that is true of course but maybe we need to do more to keep them here. Let us take the example of doctors for a start the many doctors who came to New Zealand—and New Zealand First even campaigned for New Zealand doctors. Those doctors have gone to Australia in large numbers not because they were disloyal not because they did not want to make New Zealand their home but because we did not open places for them until under a progressive action of the Minister of Health Annette King—I played a role myself in that Government—we set up a bridging course and more doctors stayed. But others left because we did not open up enough places for their skills through actions taken by ourselves. Now what we are saying to migrants is on the one hand how we love them for coming to New Zealand and on the other hand that they are not good enough; they have to wait 5 years before they qualify for citizenship. 
My amendments are directed to the status quo. There are four of them. I put it to Peter Brown to tell us at some stage how long it was before he was able to apply for citizenship. Was it 3 years or was it 5 years? He may have waited a long time because he had a privileged passport a British passport which allows people to travel without having to face the restrictions that people from Third World countries face. Such migrants go to Australia and the first thing they face is not being allowed out of the airport without having special rights special permits etc. There are two types of passports and two types of backgrounds in New Zealand I am afraid and what we should do is try to iron that out. 
My first amendment which is directed at leaving the qualifying period at 3 years is to omit from clause 4 the term “ordinarily resident”. If members vote for my first amendment that is what they will be doing; they will be keeping it at 3 years. I believe that economically that is justified and in terms of social cohesion it is fair. 
The second amendment concerns citizenship—the birthright of every child. After this legislation is passed how many members want people in their offices who have children who were born in New Zealand and have been struggling for maybe 4 or 5 years—and we should not forget that many of them win their cases and that the law was wrong—because those children cannot go to school and cannot get health care? That is why the right to citizenship for those born in New Zealand was there for years and years and was never taken away. 
And that is why the United States and Canada leave it there. It is because that right protects the child. There are not hundreds of mums getting on Boeing 747s descending on Auckland airport and then clogging up the hospitals. That is a myth. If there are one or two people who do that well—do we have a sledgehammer to crack a nut? How many members know New Zealanders who have deliberately had babies in other countries? I do. I know many who have had babies in the UK. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Craig McNair is right in a funny sort of way because I think that Australia would support this bill—but not for the reasons he explained. If we were the Australian Government and we were competing with New Zealand for skilled migrants we would welcome a bill that told those migrants they would wait 5 years for citizenship in New Zealand but only 2 years in Australia. Those migrants would go to Australia. Craig McNair said that migrants who waited a long time would become antagonistic. The essence of what that is about is that if no reason—and Matt Robson has talked about this—is given for extending the time period from 3 to 5 years people do get upset or antagonistic and they feel it is unjust to them. The result of that is not as others have indicated before people smashing windows or anything like that; they just say that perhaps New Zealand does not want them so they will go on to Australia which has a 2-year qualifying period. 
This bill as has been pointed out has been delayed for about 6 months in getting to its second reading. Can the Minister or anyone else in the Chamber point to one single baby born here during that 6-month delay—because some people are scared that people are coming here having babies getting citizenship for their babies and then taking off back home—that this bill would have applied to or that this bill would have prevented from being born a New Zealand citizen and claiming that citizenship? I do not think anyone can. As Matt Robson said the issue is about the provision under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of health care for every baby. We heard at the Government Administration Committee from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand a Catholic organisation a case study of what that means in practice. 
I will quote from the Caritas submission: “The complaint we have taken to the Human Rights Commission involves such a couple—a young family where the father is on a working visa under the business category and the mother on a student visa. The conditions of the working visa state that any application for social security assistance will affect a later application for residence. The couple’s intentions in working towards residence have always been clear. The arrival of a baby threw study and work plans into some confusion as they do for many resident and citizen New Zealanders. This created a period of financial hardship for the family which is not unknown to other New Zealand families with a new baby. However without family support or social security back-up the family experienced a level of poverty which was new even to the frontline social service agencies that met them. The mother and child were described by their Plunket nurse as literally starving because the mother was not producing enough milk to feed the baby and they could not afford formula. It is clear to everyone who has come into contact with this family that they are extremely hard working and will in the long term be an asset to New Zealand. We believe our society has always been made up of hard-working immigrants who accept a period of financial hardship for themselves but whose children are born into a new life.” 
What we are saying is that the family had problems with the social welfare system but under this legislation the parents will also have problems in getting critical medical help for their child. That is a very strong reason for having the current provision—so that any baby born here does have access to our medical services. I have an amendment here to enable the existing situation the status quo to prevail. 
I also have an amendment that is similar to other amendments put forward tonight to keep the status quo in terms of the 3-year qualifying period from residency to citizenship. As Matt Robson has said nobody has yet provided a good reason why that period should go up from 3 to 5 years. It is bureaucracy gone mad and the Government is just saying it will increase it because that seems to be the advice coming from the department. But there are just no reasons there. I think that the Minister should get up and explain why we have to go from a 3-year to a 5-year qualifying period. Why do we have to put ourselves at a disadvantage in the world? Why do we have to put new migrants to such a disadvantage? It is a matter of them waiting up to 10 years for citizenship. They arrive on a business work or student visa and spend a year or two on that. Then they spend a year applying for residence and it can be another 5 years of that residence before they get citizenship. It is a very very long wait. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am puzzled about this part of this bill. The citizenship provisions appear to specify quite strict conditions for the Minister to grant citizenship in a way that makes it look as if it is not easy for him to do it. Then new section 9A(3) inserted by clause 8 states: “Nothing in this section limits the Minister’s discretion to refuse a grant of citizenship if the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant is of good character.” But I am not sure where the Minister’s discretion is. Is there someone familiar with this law overall who knows just how broadly the Minister’s discretion is framed and how useful it is? It does seem if the Minister has broad discretion that quite a lot of the stuff in this bill is not very useful. Or is it that the Minister did have broad discretion but the courts decided they did not like it and have cut it down? I hope someone in this Chamber who went through the select committee process can actually say what the discretion is—what is its width what is its reliability and how robust will it be against well-meaning but rather self-confident judges if the Minister does have broad discretion to turn down applicants? 
I say that because when we read new section 9(1)(c) inserted by clause 8 we see there is an express permission to grant: “if the Minister is satisfied that granting a certificate … would be in the public interest because of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian or other nature …”. Maybe that kind of grant is a sort of relief of misery grant but I cannot see an express authority to grant where it would be in the public interest because the person seeking citizenship is an incredibly good catch for New Zealand—a very well-qualified person or an enormously entrepreneurial person or someone whose drive and ambition have shone through in what that person has done or someone whose inventive talents have been well displayed. I ask whether there is something else that would make such a person a special case because certainly the provisions we see in this part that allow the Minister to grant citizenship in special cases—all the powers that the Minister has to grant citizenship in special cases—are very narrow. 
Someone may point me in the direction of new section 8(8) on the preceding page that says the Minister can waive the requirement for English language and for presence in New Zealand if the Minister is satisfied “in a particular case that because of the applicant’s age or standard of education or for any other reason personal to the applicant the applicant would suffer undue hardship …”. Once more the law seems to be framed around an assumption that the applicant has a right to be here if the applicant is miserable enough or abandoned enough—if no one else would have the applicant—whereas the law should be built around the Minister granting citizenship where the applicant’s age or standard of education or other reasons personal to the applicant make that applicant a fantastic catch for New Zealand. That is the bit I hope the Minister can explain. 
I feel sure there must be some way for a Minister to allow in a whole school—as we did in the late 1930s and 1940s when we received a whole raft of very qualified people from Central Europe and did well out it. I hope we can do as well as the United States has done out of letting in the crème de la crème of the universities of the world. The other day I read that 40 percent of United States doctorates are granted to people born outside the US. 
It may be that that discretion is elsewhere and the Minister can grant citizenship simply because he is persuaded it is a good idea but the way that this bill is framed is all negative. It is assuming that one has a right to citizenship provided that one can show enough misery. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I was explaining to members—and I know that they are listening to me and perhaps rethinking their positions—that I had four amendments. First the amendment to clause 4 is to keep the status quo on the basis that there is no policy reason to change it. Second our principle has been that it is the birthright of every child born in New Zealand to be a New Zealand citizen. There is no proof before us that there is a major crisis. In fact we have a declining population in terms of age and we want more young people in New Zealand. The third amendment is to recognise the special status of marriage—which I will return to—and also recognise civil union partners as part of that special status. From both sides of the debate on the Civil Union Bill I heard many members talk about the special nature of marriage and their regard for it. I think that marriage should be brought into this legislation so as to recognise that the people who marry New Zealand citizens have made a good choice. Let us have some confidence in them. They would still have to pass the character medical and other professional qualifications tests but let us remember that the special status of marriage was an important part of that debate. 
The reason that the New Zealand First members advanced for the Australians supporting this legislation was to stop the flow—I think that was what they were saying. That is not true. I have said that the Australian officials have assured us that there is no pressure from Australia to put the qualifying period for citizenship up to 5 years. The pressure against New Zealanders going to Australia is actually part of Australian racism. I can tell members that from my own experience and from the experience of my own family. Do members know whom Australians do not like? Australians ask me: “Why do all those Maoris come over here? Why do all those Pacific Islanders come over here?”. I explain that those Maoris are New Zealand citizens and that those Pacific Islanders who are Niueans and Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens. Much of the pressure is directed against New Zealand - born citizens. 
Qualified people from Bangladesh Iraq and Sri Lanka are welcome in Australia. I have a Bangladeshi friend who is a doctor—a specialist—who could not get qualifications in New Zealand. He now does the flying doctor service all throughout Queensland based in Mount Isa. Another specialist was not allowed to practise here; he failed his exams in psychiatry. He did not want to practise psychiatry. He is an orthopaedic specialist and a stomach specialist. He went to the Royal Darwin Hospital where he now specialises in crocodile bites. The Australians want him there. Another friend is a Russian doctor who could not practise here—a TB specialist and we do have a problem with TB here—but the authorities said no. He is now practising in Melbourne. Australia welcomes the people whom we have not kept here. The desire to stop New Zealanders going there and things like the 2-year qualification period before one can get any benefits are actually directed against New Zealand citizens. I am afraid to say in terms of my own home country that the racism that still exists in that society is directed against New Zealand - born citizens particularly Maori and Pacific Island New Zealand citizens. 
The special status of marriage meant we recognised that it was good to have a strong bond within the family. That is why when New Zealanders brought a spouse back to the country they loved they wanted that spouse to be on the same level and status as them as quickly as possible. If one is a New Zealand citizen whose wife comes from Bangladesh one should try going to Australia to attend the same function. The Bangladeshi wife has to go into the Australian consul and I am afraid she has to grovel. I have had to help people in that regard. They have to produce bank statements and affidavits and they are still turned down on the basis that the authorities think they will stay in Australia or do something terrible there. As soon as the spouse is a New Zealand citizen she or he can travel on an equal basis to that of his or her partner. 
The other point is that in New Zealand too there are many areas where if one is not a New Zealand citizen one is not on the same level as someone who is. Mostly I think that is quite good. A person has a range of rights as a resident. I had them for 20 years before I became a citizen in the year 2000. It took me longer than Peter Brown to become a New Zealand citizen. Obviously Australians need more than 5 years—unlike the British I say to Peter Brown because he got his citizenship in 3 years I am sure. For an Australian it takes a bit longer. However the range of rights is really extensive. I was elected as a member of Parliament although I was a resident of Australia and not a citizen of New Zealand. I thought what a great country New Zealand was for being so broad-minded and for being so good. I see the Minister of Internal Affairs is looking at me as if to say he is thinking he had better go back and look at that citizenship grant now that he has the new power coming to him of being able to take someone’s passport away. But I have confidence in George Hawkins—just as the New Zealand public does—and I am sure that he would not do that. 
In terms of the recognition of civil union partners I think that the Committee should remember that we have passed it into law that a civil union is of an equal status to marriage. We have talked at length about families so what about retaining that status in the law? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to put the facts right because there might still be one person listening to the radio after that member’s contribution. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Not now they won’t be. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think that listeners may have done their dash but just in case they are about to switch the radio off I have to tell people that there are Maori people by the thousand in Australia and they are loving it over there. They are feeling very very welcome. I can tell people first-hand that my colleagues—particularly my Maori colleagues in New Zealand First—have a direct relationship with many of them and they tell us that they will not be coming back because they love Australia so much. So I say to Mr Robson that to give the reverse impression is to do a huge disservice both to the country he was born in which I find a bit unusual and to the Maori folk who are over there. I can say to that member quite categorically that there are a lot of Maori people living in Australia and they are loving it more every day. 
Pansy Wong said in an earlier contribution that this law will make us the toughest of five countries that she listed. 
Pansy Wong 
: I’m always right. 
PETER BROWN 
: She is always right and I acknowledge that to the member. But I want to say that she spoke as if it is something we should be ashamed of. New Zealand First is quite proud that we are tough on the people whom we let into this country. We are quite pleased that the honourable member—who will not shut up behind me—sees us as the toughest of the five countries. New Zealand First has always said that immigration should be controlled. 
I do not know the exact answer to Mr Robson’s question about how long I was here before I got citizenship but it was a darn sight longer than 5 years. It was not a pressing problem for me. I came here. I was welcomed here. I lived here. I worked here. I contributed—I hope—to society. I certainly put my back into my employment. I paid my taxes. And I made many many friends—natural-born New Zealanders and people who had come from other countries. It did not matter at all to me whether it took 5 years 10 years or whatever. I echo the sentiments I think of the ACT member—he puts his hand up when he does not even know what I am going to say—who said that it should be a privilege to come and live here on a permanent basis. This is an absolutely fantastic country and members talk as if we should open the doors for anybody to come here. New Zealand First is quite proud to say that anyone who wants to come and live here has to conform has to come up to scratch and has to assimilate into this society. We will not walk away from that. 
I also want to talk about babies being born here. My colleague said he had heard that it could be as many as 600 women who come here on an annual basis to give birth to babies so that the youngsters will be New Zealand citizens. Then they can take those babies offshore as permanent New Zealand citizens. That is absolutely daft. We are very pleased to compliment the Minister on taking up our member’s bill and embracing it in this piece of legislation. We are particularly pleased that he showed enough initiative to see that New Zealand First had a point and that its proposals should be put into a Government bill. 
I say to Matt Robson who is shaking his head over there that I do not think he has the support of his leader for his stance. I ask the member whether he has the support of his leader for what he is saying. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: There are 10 members in my caucus who would vote for me and probably 25! 
PETER BROWN 
: I think we can say that he does not have the support of his leader. He stands up there making a noise like an empty barrel and he does not even have the support of his leader. I say to that honourable member—and that is the best thing I can call him tonight—“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” He should stop moaning about people who want to tighten up the situation here. He should stop complaining. 
We in New Zealand First are proud of this country and we are going to put some rules and regulations in place to keep the standard up. We compliment the Minister on this piece of legislation. We do not think it goes far enough but it is certainly a couple of steps in the right direction. After the next election whoever we are in coalition with or whoever our junior partner is when we are leading the next Government we will probably toughen the legislation up a bit more. I can see that Matt Robson has indigestion at the very thought of that. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would just like to reply to Peter Brown’s comment that some 600 women give birth in New Zealand annually to get citizenship for their babies. In fact the Government Administration Committee had a paper from the Department of Internal Affairs listing babies born to foreign-born parents but those parents were essentially—obviously—people on work visas business visas and student visas. A lot of them were young people. Some of those who come here on student visas or work visas are young people with partners who then have babies. 
Peter Brown 
: How many? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The figure given was 600 but there are all sorts. These were foreign-born people but they did not come here specifically to have babies. In fact point 21 of the Department of Internal Affairs document states: “The Ministry of Health has advised that it is not possible to provide a breakdown of how many women fall within the categories listed above or to estimate how many of the women have come to New Zealand with the primary purpose of giving birth.” There are simply no statistics on that. So anyone who says that people are coming here for that specific reason does not have the data to back it up. 
This whole bill is based on no information whatsoever. We asked and asked in the select committee and got no answer. That is why this bill is such a nonsense. One case was reported in a newspaper—the Christchurch 
 Press 
 or something—about an American woman who apparently came here on a visitor visa had a baby and went home. That is about as much information as we have. If that baby grows up in Kentucky Las Vegas or wherever and when she is 21 years old decides to use her New Zealand citizenship to come and live in New Zealand to me it would seem quite a tribute to this country if after being brought up in America she wanted to come here. 
Mr Brown says he did not have any trouble when for several years he did not have citizenship or a New Zealand passport. I think that only reinforces Matt Robson’s point. Mr Brown probably had a British passport which gave him entry into countries around the world pretty easily. But if one is on a Bangladeshi passport a Thai passport or an Indonesian passport as many of the spouses of New Zealand citizens in New Zealand are one just cannot get into virtually any OECD country. That is the reality. I think we have to be clear that if we take any sort of anti-migrant stance—and tonight people have been implying that we have to be scared of migrants and stressing all the time that it is a privilege to come here that we do not want them at our doors and that they absolutely have to prove themselves—there is a bit of inconsistency in what we are saying. 
As Mr Brown indicated just about every New Zealand extended family has members who have migrated overseas and they are very lucky that most of the countries they have migrated to have accepted them with open arms—and Australia has been mentioned tonight. So it is inconsistent to say that we are going to protect our shores from migrants and to be hostile and disparaging to migrants in the way New Zealand First is and at the same time ask countries overseas not to put any barriers in the way of New Zealanders going overseas. We have to realise that we are a small nation in the Pacific. We do rely on our children having access to overseas countries. We should protect that and not be anti-immigrant in any sense ourselves. 
I support not only the two amendments to this part that I have put forward but also the amendments of Matt Robson and Pansy Wong which all move in the direction of protecting what we have at the moment and not going down the silly path of extending the residency requirement from 3 years to 5 years denying automatic citizenship to babies born here etc. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I just want to address a point made by the Green member Keith Locke picking up a theme that was run by the Hon Matt Robson about whether Part 1 establishes a high threshold or whether it establishes a very hostile—I think that was the word he used—tone. I raise that because I have already spoken about the apparent absence of a power for the Minister to welcome with open arms people who are very attractive to this country but I do not think it is possible to call the criminal conviction standard anything other than unimaginably wussy. 
New section 9A “Disqualifying convictions” inserted by clause 8 prohibits the Minister from granting citizenship if: “(a) the person was sentenced on conviction to—(i) a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or (ii) an indefinite term of imprisonment capable of running for 5 years or more;”—in other words preventive detention—“or (b) within the preceding 7 years the person was subject to a sentence of imprisonment of less than 5 years or was subject to release under subpart 2 of Part 1 of the Parole Act 2002; or (c) within the preceding 3 years the person was convicted of an offence but did not receive a sentence of imprisonment.” 
 The reason I say that is that this focus on imprisonment is actually a focus on people who are pretty serious criminals. The average New Zealand prisoner has had nine previous convictions before his or her first prison sentence so that to get a conviction and sentence of 5 years a pretty serious offence has to be committed. I do not understand why the provision simply does not state that except in the most extraordinary circumstances any imprisonable offence should disqualify. 
Indeed I think there would be many good immigrants who would say that any offence whatsoever should disqualify. I deliberately went out and asked two groups of Chinese about what they thought of our immigration law. They were really amazed and embarrassed by the tolerance the New Zealand system shows to people they describe as ratbags. They did not want ratbags staying in New Zealand letting them all down and damaging the reputation of their people. It was unbelievable to them that after their arrest their feet touched the ground before they were ejected. 
Yet here we have a situation whereby new section 9A as I read it tells the Minister to keep people out only when they are really serious ratbags. Is this another one of those United Nations rules? We do not expect Australians to take New Zealanders if they have been convicted of offences. We do not like it when they eject our ratbags and send them back here; we hate it. But we realise that that is just the way it works. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: We evict a lot actually. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: We do evict a lot but what I am surprised at I tell Mr Swain—because I know that he will understand this very well—is that the Minister who has the discretion in this legislation to authorise a grant of citizenship to people who have been convicted which is a pretty big concession has to wait until those people have been given a 5-year sentence preventive detention or a sentence of less than 5 years but have had parole in the previous 7 years. Why is it simply not any conviction unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has actually turned his or her life around and is living a blameless existence? 
We do not need offenders. We are perfectly capable of growing our own. In fact we are very good at it. We have the second-highest rate of imprisonment in the Western World so we do not need to import more. I am baffled about why the Minister is being told in this legislation to apply such a high standard and even more baffled about why Mr Robson and Mr Locke are busy telling us that this legislation is giving evidence of hostility to people who want to become New Zealand citizens. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 My plea in relation to the four amendments I have proposed to the Committee was: why should we change the 3-year provision now why should we penalise the spouses of New Zealand citizens who could apply after 2 years why should we have the strict conditions of character and fitness etc. and why should we penalise those who may have been on a student permit or work permit and who in the past have shown a good character had a good record and contributed while in New Zealand? That has been my plea. 
I think the exchange between Mr Peter Brown of the New Zealand First Party and myself has been illustrative of this: Mr Brown and I have passports from privileged countries and we did not rush it seems to get New Zealand citizenship. Mr Brown has said that people who come to New Zealand should show an allegiance. Then why does he want to penalise the people who show such allegiance that after 3 years they want to be New Zealand citizens whereas people like him and me did not rush into it? Were we any worse people for not doing that? He seems to be suggesting that other immigrants should show their allegiance. I think that after 3 years they want to do that. 
Let us move to a debate that is going on between Australia and New Zealand now with regard to the rugby league teams. Next Friday we will see the greatest rugby league team in the world. Australia will be here and hopefully New Zealand may knock that team off its perch. What I will do is to wait until half-time to see who is winning and then I will put up my passport depending on which country is winning. My citizenship gives me that privilege. But there is great pressure on New Zealanders who are born in New Zealand but who have been in Australia for a long time since they were little kids to play for New Zealand. There is no suggestion that they have no allegiance to New Zealand. New Zealanders are asking them to come and play for New Zealand. I say to the Committee that we should drop the false and artificial standards of who does have allegiance and who does not and apply the criteria we have applied for so long. 
When people come to New Zealand there is a strict and tough test in order to obtain residence and that is fair enough. It is hard as many members of Parliament will know because they will have tried to help people who have problems in that area. But we should not put up an even harder hurdle for people who have spent 3 years here or 2 years where a spouse is involved or 5 or 6 years on a work permit or who have had a long-term business visa or who have studied for a PhD and married a New Zealander—or whatever their situation may be. With this legislation we are going to spin the process out and make it harder for them. We should think also of the Pacific Islanders—Tongan New Zealanders; Samoan New Zealanders—who have become New Zealanders and who are thinking about joining their family members in Australia. I have seen the heartbreak experienced by people in New Zealand who have families in Australia but who are not allowed by the Australian authorities to join their families because they do not have New Zealand citizenship. How many tragic events like funerals do people want to go to from New Zealand to Australia? Members should think honestly of the people they have given help to; they are many. 
Members should also think of the refugees who have been in New Zealand for 6 or 7 years and are given New Zealand citizenship because we accept as Peter Brown says that they come from war-torn ravaged countries. They have not seen their family they may want to work in a third country and they cannot have a New Zealand passport for another 3 years possibly because the residence period is to increase from 3 to 5 years. They wait 6 years. Why do we want to add to their mental suffering? Why do we want to do that? There has never been a problem in the past. When does the person show his or her wrongdoing? Is it suddenly in the fourth year? Does a person hide in all the years before that that he or she was actually a secret member of al-Qaeda even before it was set up? That is just nonsense. There is no policy reason and no evidence here. If we just return to the question of the children we should ask ourselves why we suddenly want to create a problem when there was never one before and we protected all the children born in New Zealand. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. New Zealand First has kicked up merry bobsy-die in the past by wanting to know when there has been a split vote who voted for and who voted against. We have reached an agreement in the Business Committee that that will be divulged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Technically the member in the first vote should have said his name. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I voted in favour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Subject to subsection (2) of this section every person born in New Zealand on or after the 1st day of January 1949 shall be a New Zealand citizen by birth. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause: 
Section 6 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection: 
(3)Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section every person born in New Zealand on or after the 1st day of January 1978 shall be a New Zealand citizen by birth if he would otherwise be stateless. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit the term “8A”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment to clause 8 is in the name of Keith Locke. It is the same as the previous amendment and is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of section 8(2)(b) the words “was entitled in terms of the Immigration Act 1987 to be in New Zealand indefinitely” and substitute the words “was ordinarily resident in New Zealand”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) from section 8(2) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(b)That the applicant was throughout the period of 3 years immediately preceding the date of his application ordinarily resident in New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (d) of section 8(2) after the words “attaching to New Zealand citizenship the words “by completing a compulsory citizenship induction course administered by the Department of Internal Affairs”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert after section 8(3) the following new subsection: 
(3A)For the purpose of subsection 2(b)(ii) for every day during which the application was lawfully in New Zealand on a tertiary equivalent student visa work visa or long term business visa the applicant shall be deemed to have been in New Zealand for one-half of a day. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 8 is out of order because of the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (3) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (3) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph: 
(c)became so entitled on or after 1 July 2005 and is a long term business visa holder who was present in New Zealand as at 30 June 2005. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 1; 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Passports Act 1992 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have an amendment in relation to the powers of the Minister of Internal Affairs to take away a New Zealander’s passport. As I indicated in my second reading speech the Green Party is opposed to that. The discussion so far has been interesting. So typically was the contribution made by Stephen Franks who brought in the Zaoui case. Sometimes I describe the clause giving the Minister of Internal Affairs the power to take away a New Zealand passport as the “Zaoui clause”. That power was likewise applied in relation to the security risk certificate in the Zaoui case. We are giving the Minister—a political figure not a judicial figure—the power to affect the future of a person detrimentally in terms of whether he or she has the right to stay in a country and in this bill the right to have a passport. 
The issue is whether we should be governed by the rule of law and the judiciary or whether we should give those powers to penalise people to a Minister. Sure there are rights of appeal in both the security risk certificate procedure and this bill but it is reversing the onus of proof where a person’s future is detrimentally affected. In Mr Zaoui’s case he has had to wait well over 2 years now and has had to go through all sorts of hoops after the ministerial determination. The same would apply under this bill. If the Minister of Internal Affairs is given the right to take away a New Zealander’s passport then the person whose passport is taken away will suffer all sorts of disadvantages and have to go through a complicated court process to get it back. It illustrates a point following on from what Stephen Franks said that if we start to treat foreigners—people who do not have New Zealand residency or citizenship—differently from New Zealanders and think that the full rule of law can be applied to New Zealanders but does not need to be applied to foreigners then we will actually undermine our own due process our own rule of law and it will come back to bite us in the end. That is why in this bill I call the clause the “Zaoui clause”. 
The fact is that the New Zealand political system and the Government went weak on the security risk certificate procedure even though there was Labour opposition to that procedure in 1999 when it came in. It was applied against Mr Zaoui thereby undermining the due process of law and laying the groundwork for the “Zaoui clause” to come into the bill giving unprecedented powers as Matt Robson has explained to take—and I quoted earlier from the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation—away what is a fundamental and long-cherished right of a New Zealander to have a passport and not to have it taken away for political reasons. There is a history of other countries such as Australia and America during the cold war putting into their legislation the right of political discretion as to whether someone has a passport. It was applied in America against the well-known singer Paul Robeson because of his political views. His passport was taken away. In the case of Australia a chap called Wilfred Burchett wrote on the Vietnam situation and was critical of the Australian Government’s position—the Menzies Government position. His passport was taken away. 
New Zealand had enough of a democratic tradition not to go along with the Australians and the Americans in the depth of the cold war but now under the George Bush inspired “war on terrorism” that is undermining human rights across the world the Labour Government has unfortunately caved in. It is bringing in a provision that gives a political figure the power to undermine a fundamental right and to take away a New Zealander’s passport. Although there are appeal processes they are not adequate and that was drawn out in the submissions to the select committee by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. The problem is that some of the material is classified. Even the New Zealander whose passport is taken away might not be able to see all that material. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is noteworthy is it not that we have had one call by the Green member who I guess would even be proud to be called a fellow-traveller of Mr Zaoui and we saw another person in this Chamber Mr Robson seeking the call—also a fellow-traveller of Mr Zaoui. 
I want to raise this issue; after all Mr Locke put the issue into debate. This bill is about whether this nation is serious about dealing with terrorism. I know that Mr Franks for instance would say that his concern about the bill is that it is actually too weak on terrorism. He raises something that somewhat troubles me about the ACT approach which is their constant criticism of the UN. In the area of terrorism UN conventions are a part of the process of countries working together to deal with the issues. 
This bill does give powers to the Minister to revoke or withdraw the passports of those people who are a threat to national security. Essentially that can be done in two ways; firstly to stop a person from travelling overseas simply by the withdrawing of a passport; and secondly perhaps somewhat more broadly to revoke the granting of a passport gained through fraud. 
It is very important that we have those powers. We are in dangerous times. One has only to see that trial in Britain where a murderer was convicted of numerous terrorist offences of putting not just the one person whom a murderer would normally assail—a family member or someone—but the whole community at risk. That person wanted to kill hundreds of people—poisoning them by smearing door handles and the like—on a completely terroristic basis. He was indifferent as to who would be caught by that; he wanted people to die. That is the definition of terrorism. Surely it is right that this country takes serious action to stop that sort of thing. That is why National is supporting this part of the bill. We are determined to show we are serious about standing up for our freedoms and our values alongside other countries that will do likewise. 
The members who are voting against this seem to be completely unaware of the democratic and judicial protections built within the legislation. A lot of work was put into this. This is not a situation where the Minister has absolute control. There is the ability to appeal to the High Court. That is legitimate and proper. In the traditions of democracy—of a country that does respect the law—we do provide those protections. But as a nation we are also determined—and National always stands very proudly for this—to protect our freedoms our heritage and our nation against those who would wreak havoc against them. Mr Locke and Mr Robson by their votes would seem to be heedless and careless of this. They would give succour and comfort to the terrorist. They will get up and deny that but the reality is that that is exactly what they do by opposing these provisions. 
I just want to say this about Mr Zaoui: he is a man who was found guilty by the court of appeal in Belgium a democratic country of aiding and abetting terrorists—people who had bombs guns money and passports which are the very things one expects to find terrorists with. That is the kind of person whom Mr Zaoui associates with. The judge said that Mr Zaoui was a person who led an unacceptably clandestine life. What do terrorists do? That is the kind of life they lead. The judge also said that he provided moral succour to those terrorists. We do not want people like that—[ 
Interruption 
] I want to complete this point. It is important because basic values of our country are at stake. 
From time to time in our nation we are called on to be judged. Are we prepared to stand up against tyranny? Are we prepared to stand up against threats to our livelihood and threats to our way of life? People are judged. The public judge members of this Parliament by the way they act on those fundamental issues. I believe that the vast majority of members will vote for Part 2. They will do so irrespective of what their party identification might be because there are some foundation principles in our country; they are a respect for freedom and democracy and a stand against those who would attack those values. 
We do have to give our Government the powers to deal with those people. I am appalled to hear people say they would not do that and who cannot even recognise the protections that are built into the legislation such as the independent review from the High Court. There will be an election in a few months’ time. Members will be judged by their actions. They will be judged as to whether they stood up for our country when there was a clear and present danger to it. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Patrick Henry did say that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I would never say that Dr Mapp is a scoundrel but I think he should read Patrick Henry. 
I have always found it strange that those who say they are against what terrorists may stand for—the undermining of democracy and liberties—themselves will advocate measures that are anti-democratic. The question here about whether the High Court has the right to review is not the fundamental question because in our law one cannot take the right of review away from the court although it must be said that under legislation mentioned in relation to Mr Ahmed Zaoui which was passed by the National Government an attempt was made to take the right of review away from the High Court. But the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in New Zealand have rejected that attempt and say that they have not lost that right of review of executive actions. 
What is actually at stake here are some fundamental questions. Where there has been terrorist action in New Zealand for example the terrorism of the French Government we used the existing law to charge those people and convict them. No new law was rushed through. The law we had at that time was adequate to combat the terrorism. When Israeli Government spies forged papers to get New Zealand passports we used the existing law at the time. Where in this legislation is there a recognition of the fundamental principle that with regard to those who have opposed terrorism and the imposition terrorism has fought for it is the State’s responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it believes someone is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime? Where is that in this bill? It is not in the bill and it does not exist. 
More the pity that there has not been an analysis of this issue in any caucus. There are lawyers in the National Party caucus who have presumably done some constitutional law. There are lawyers in all parties in this House but I am sure that in none of those caucuses—apart from the Progressive caucus where I put up this issue for discussion and the Green caucus—has there been an analysis of those fundamental questions. 
I know that this bill will go through because the pity is there has been little thought given to it. People are saying to themselves that it will not apply to them. Fortunately there is precedent in our country that when we have passed anti-democratic legislation eventually wisdom comes through and we return to democracy. The Public Safety Conservation Act which removed fundamental rights from New Zealand and was used in the waterfront lockout against the very people who voted for and supported Labour was finally withdrawn. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s this got to do with passports? 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I do not expect from Mr Brownlee any deep thought on a matter like this whatsoever. 
However I do suggest it is important that where the aspect of a person’s passport and freedom to travel is concerned we look at what is happening around the world. Legislatures and judicial bodies are saying—as our own Justice Glazebrook has said—that we should not throw security issues as a blanket over fundamental issues. 
My amendments recognise that this legislation will be passed; what they do is to put stricter reporting requirements on the Minister who brings a passport back to this House. Keith Locke used a very good example of when the US Government took Paul Robeson’s passport from him during the cold war in America. The American judicial system has since come to realise that that was a mistake. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that good order is the foundation of all things. I ask for good order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask for a point of clarification: which things? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am quoting Edmund Burke. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Who is this Edmund Burke and why should members in this Chamber be extolled to take on board that nondescript person’s theories of life? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to be seated. That is not a point of order. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The member who just preceded me said that this is an undemocratic bill. He said that this is undemocratic legislation. 
Hon Member 
: Who said that? Edmund Burke? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: No Matt Robson said that. I remind Matt Robson— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s just a berk! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I know what the member is going to say. I would like members to look at Speakers’ rulings 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. I was going to say that they are to be witty but I have given up on that. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Those interjections were not even relevant to what I was speaking about. 
Matt Robson said that this is an undemocratic bill. I remind the Committee and Mr Robson specifically that the European Convention on Human Rights recognises national security as a ground for restricting the right to freedom of movement. A lot of countries that are encompassed by the European Convention on Human Rights are left-leaning countries that Mr Robson would fit into quite easily. 
I want to stay on this subject of national security. New section 4A(1) inserted by clause 23 specifically provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document on grounds of national security. When I saw that I wanted to look at other jurisdictions to see what they thought and what their rules were on the issue. I looked at Australia. Australia has a provision for the refusal and cancellation of passports when the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs is satisfied that a person may prejudice the security of Australia. The UK is covered under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the US the discretionary power of the Secretary of State to issue passports has been construed generally to authorise— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Tell us about Angola. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I do not know what the member is trying to allude to in interjecting about Angola but maybe if he takes a call in this Committee stage he can tell us. 
The US has similar rules and as I said the UK is covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Other provisions in the bill provide for a court to make an order forbidding the issue of a passport when sentencing a person for a terrorism-related offence and for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information for the purpose of aiding border security facilitating the processing of passengers or verifying the identity of a travel document holder. 
When we look at the important issues relating to national security at what has happened in the last 4 or 5 years as far as terrorism-related issues are concerned at the  
9/11 Commission Report 
 and at all the issues raised from that and a lot of other reports regarding national security in different countries—not that I have read many others apart from the one I have just mentioned—we start to realise the need for legislation such as this. I believe that it is unpatriotic when particular parties in this Parliament vote against legislation like this. It is not patriotic. For members to support and vote for legislation like this which will protect our national security all New Zealanders and cities like Wellington our capital city like Auckland our major city like the beautiful city of Christchurch and other cities is patriotic. 
I believe that this legislation supports and protects all New Zealanders. That is what it is all about. That is why New Zealand First has put pressure on this Government for the last 6 years even though the Government has been reluctant to pass legislation and even though it has had a couple of factions fighting each other. John Tamihere’s faction may be saying no and the other softie faction may be saying yes. Actually John Tamihere’s faction is probably saying yes and the other faction is saying no. Ten members would back John Tamihere to the hilt and 15 others would back him on a good day. They are probably saying that this legislation is good. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I will finish the point I was making in my last speech: the Greens are opposed to giving the Minister of Internal Affairs the power to take away a passport—even though we know that George Hawkins would apply it very fairly—because we believe we should not give a politician such a power; we should be governed by judicial processes. Even if that power were passed tonight the Green Party would like it restrained as much as possible and we support Matt Robson’s amendment in that respect. 
The question of how to apply any subsequent appeal processes after the Minister’s decision was brought up in the Government Administration Committee by the Human Rights Commission the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. The joint submission by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation stated particularly in relation to New Zealand citizens: “If the state proposes to take action against a person present within our borders—and all the more so a New Zealand citizen—the information in which that action is to be based must surely be fully disclosed and the case proved by admissible evidence to the necessary standard?”. The Human Rights Commission took a different tack in that judicial debate which is a debate going on around the world as to how to deal with classified security information. The commission suggested a process of allowing security-cleared legal representatives to hear all classified security information. 
The problem that that submission addressed is that if some information is hidden away from the person accused we get into a problem—the sort of problem that Ahmed Zaoui is in at the present time. He still does not know what the Security Intelligence Service has against him—in fact if it does have anything further against him other than the generalities offered so far. 
One reason why we have to be scared of giving politicians the right to affect our future such as by taking away the passport of a New Zealander comes out of what Stephen Franks said earlier. He said that when we are dealing with non - New Zealand citizens in relation to people coming here suspicion is enough. I think that that is the problem. If we give a case to a politician—and politicians have all sorts of political agendas and there are good politicians and very bad politicians; we see them around the world—we believe that suspicion is not enough. 
We have to stick in all cases to due process—to the people accused being properly provided with the information against them and having the full right to defend themselves—and independent judicial decisions. If we depart from those in any sense and I think this bill does to some extent then we are in trouble. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been looking in vain for provisions that deal with the question Mr Locke has just raised. The procedures set out in new sections 29AA and 29AB inserted by clause 40 to my alarm treat all three categories of restricted or withdrawn travel document the same. I believed and I fully expected that there would be a distinction. I consider the withdrawing of a New Zealander’s freedom of travel the passport—thereby turning New Zealand into a little personal Berlin for a New Zealander—as a very different matter from withdrawing the right of a privileged foreigner to live here or to demand a New Zealand travel document. 
So I am very concerned when I look at the amendments proposed by Mr Locke and Mr Robson. As far as I can see they have not dealt with the extraordinary powers that are given in new sections 29AA and 29AB. I am not sure that I have time to try to draft an amendment but it seems to me a very bad principle indeed that a New Zealander could effectively be locked behind our borders on the basis of information that not even the person’s own lawyers let alone the person could see and that the summary prepared by the court is of that untested information. If I am reading the amendments correctly we will not even know how many times that has happened. 
There is one safeguard I guess. The threshold standard that the Minister must satisfy is very high indeed. The test of risk to national security is I think of an extraordinarily high standard. I am really puzzled as to why this legislation is not crafted in a way that makes the standard for a New Zealander—the right to leave and re-enter one’s own country—very very strictly protected. But why should someone who has a privilege in coming here who does not have the rights of a New Zealander have the same kind of protection in the first place? When it gets to procedure and the processes a court follows—the requirement on the court that it not disclose the classified security information supplied by the Attorney-General—why should the New Zealander suffer the same kind of offensive process? I am really astounded that this provision got through the Government Administration Committee without the committee saying: “Hang on a minute. It is OK if some foreigner has come here and perhaps abused our hospitality but it is certainly not OK for a New Zealander to face secret evidence that not even his or her own lawyers can see to never get access to it and to be trapped in New Zealand on the whim of a politician.” 
I have to agree with Mr Locke in so far as the legislation extends to a New Zealand citizen. I think it is poor that we are treating all three categories the same. It is poor that they are all being treated the same in terms of the test for the national security breach and it is even poorer that they are all being treated the same in terms of a very offensive procedure. Although I had thought that this was something we ought to be voting for having been through the legislation and heard this part of the debate in this Committee stage I now believe that we should be considering voting against this one. 
The reasons for that are very different from those of Mr Robson and Mr Locke in most respects but are similar in one respect. The freedoms of New Zealand citizens should not be infringed upon simply because we have a Government that is too wimpish and too scared of international opinion to draw a proper distinction between the rights and privileges of a New Zealand citizen and the privileges of people who come here as guests and should recognise that they are here on sufferance until they become New Zealand citizens themselves after which time they must be treated in every respect the same as every other New Zealand citizen. I think it is a disappointment that there is not a set of amendments. I do not know whether I will get a chance but I will try to draft some. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The ACT member has made a point but from New Zealand First’s reading of the bill I think he has tended to overstate it quite considerably. But one concern that New Zealand First has and I do not think anybody thus far has raised it relates to clause 24 “Life of passport”. That concerns us quite considerably. This bill will halve the life of a passport. I think everybody in this House knows and I think every New Zealander knows that a passport lasts for 10 years. But this bill halves its life to 5 years. 
I understand that the new passport when it comes in will embrace new technology such as photographs of eyes and so on so that people will be identified very positively and there cannot be any mistake about it. But I think it is a burden on people to cut the life of a passport from 10 years to 5 years. New Zealand First is quite disappointed by that unless of course the Government intends to halve the fee. Maybe the Minister can explain to us what the fee will be when the life of a passport becomes 5 years instead of 10 years. He surely is not contemplating increasing the fee; I know that he is a man of honour and he would not dare increase the fee. We think that if he is going to halve the life of a passport he should halve the fee. 
A second concern I have and my colleague Craig McNair illustrated it considerably is that I cannot understand the Progressive Party voting against this. I will read only the headings of some of the new sections because the sections are too long to read out. New section 8A inserted by clause 27 is headed: “Cancellation of passport on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the ability to cancel a passport on the grounds of national security. The Progressive Party will vote against that as will the Greens but I think that the country expects the Greens to vote against it. New section 20A inserted by clause 31 is headed: “Cancellation of certificate of identity on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the right to: “… recall any certificate of identity issued to any person by or on behalf of the New Zealand Government”. The Government’s coalition partner the Progressive Party is going to vote against that. [ 
Interruption 
] I heard the Labour Minister say that it is terrible. They are selling this country short big time. 
But that is not all. New section 25A inserted by clause 35 is headed: “Cancellation of emergency travel document on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the right—and he has to put it in writing—to recall any emergency travel document. But the Progressives are going to vote against that. They do not believe in that. We know that the Greens would want to make this an open-door country to all and sundry. At least they are consistent. But I thought that the Progressives particularly Jim Anderton were much more aware of the problems this country is facing. I am amazed that the Progressive Party is going to vote against that. 
Here is another one. New section 27B inserted by clause 37 is headed: “Refusal to issue refugee travel document on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the ability to: “… refuse to issue a New Zealand refugee travel document to a person if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds …” and the provision goes on to outline the grounds that concern national security. The Progressives are going to vote against that. 
I ask Mr Robson where his loyalty to this country is. Where is his loyalty to New Zealand? He is going to vote against those very very important sections. Those sections are so important that New Zealand First is going to vote for this part even though we disagree with the clause dealing with the life of a passport. That overrides our concern on that clause by 1000 percent. I am actually appalled that members of Parliament in this country would vote against this sort of legislation. Frankly in this volatile world we need to tighten up. As Pansy Wong said right at the beginning of this debate this bill will make us the toughest of five nations. She is not still here is she? 
Pansy Wong 
: I am. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am delighted along with others in New Zealand First to be one of the toughest nations. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert new clause 46A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to the schedule be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to ask members to support my amendment. Last year the Minister of Internal Affairs impressed upon the House how important it was for this legislation to be passed in a hurry in order to protect New Zealand from international terrorist attack. But we see now that the original commencement date for clauses 4 and 8 which was intended to be 1 January 2005 is long passed. 
My amendment which would introduce some certainty for people affected by the changes to the qualifying period for citizenship would substitute a definitive commencement date of 1 July 2005. The Minister’s amendment simply states that the Act will come into force on the commencement date without actually specifying what that date will be. 
I invite the Minister to take a call. He has sat there behaving exactly like one of the monkeys in my three-monkey collection—saying nothing. He has not answered any of the very serious questions raised by members on this side of the Chamber including half of the caucus of the Progressive Party. So I invite the Minister to take a call. If he does not then I just urge the Committee to support my amendment. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 July 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 24; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 352. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just a point of clarification. Now that the bill has been divided into two separate bills I take it that the third reading debate will cover amendments to both bills or do we have separate debates? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debates will be taken together and the questions of course will be put separately.