Seymour David: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4583. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): An earlier speaker said that he found it a great pleasure to speak on this bill and he said it with great conviction. It was possibly more a reflection of the member than the bill but it is important that we get this technical adjustment made. I cannot help but respond to a few earlier speakers. There was one from the Labour Party who said that it was a policy issue as to whether passports should be funded by user-pays or general taxation. Only the modern Labour Party would seriously contemplate taxing the working class to pay for a good that is entirely private in its benefit—entirely private in its benefit—and used by people who can afford to leave the country. But that is a sad commentary on the current state of the Labour Party members who have forgotten whom they represent and where they are.I thought perhaps I should also respond to the earnest member from New Zealand First only to say that I believe he is improving in his speaking and may become a very good parliamentarian in due course. I wonder members whether I should try to explain to him the difference between fixed and variable costs but he has got the professor—oh no he does not. Perhaps I should try to explain that the reason it can cost more per unit to produce a smaller number of passports is that indeed some costs are fixed and others are variable.Iain Lees-Galloway: How much did it cost for David’s garage?DAVID SEYMOUR: I think that was a private arrangement Mr Lees-Galloway. I would like to speak on behalf of some constituents I have heard from who have told me that they find themselves in the difficult position of being eligible to renew their passport between now—or at least between August 2014 when this change was first announced—and the time when they will be able to get a 10-year passport. These people “the 1¼ years people” find themselves requiring another 5-year passport and they are missing out on the benefit of this bill.If you think about it there is a 5-year term for passports so in 1¼ years around 30 percent nearly a third of all passport holders will be caught in the delay between the announcement of this change and the change coming into effect. Indeed it was announced first in August 2014. It was announced again in April 2015 and it was announced again in May 2015. As one of my constituents wrote this has been announced more times than the coming of Christ. And how many times does the Government impose a similarly complex—or indeed much more complex—change which is ultimately a change in a price and date upon small businesses and across New Zealanders and their households and expect them to adapt much more rapidly to far more complex changes with so little notice?This is a worthwhile consideration for anybody who thinks about the impact that we in this House can have upon people when we make regulations when we raise taxes and when we provide services in a certain way. So often the regulations and the Acts in this House have a disproportionate cost imposed on people out there and it is very important that we are always mindful of the impact that the Government with its coercive powers and its very powerful legislative instruments can have on the welfare of ordinary New Zealanders. So with those few considerations in mind I like Brett Hudson take great pleasure in the idea that we will soon again have 10-year passports—a much more efficient outcome—and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.