Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20112] 
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?