Roche Denise: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I think when we are looking at the bill and its introduction it is important to trace back to where the inspiration for this policy change came from. I believe that it was from a petition launched by Kyle Lockwood. In his interview in the Sunday Star-Times he said that he was inspired to create the petition after he saw a really upset mother with her son at Melbourne airport who could not fly because her passport had less than 6 months left on it so it was about to become invalid.It is important that we acknowledge the democratic process and that it was a petition that ultimately led to this bill coming to the House and that it was a campaign that did that. Although the democratic process can move really slowly we really do need to celebrate the fact that an ordinary New Zealander was listened to in the halls of power and we are hopefully changing policy as a result. I guess from our point of view this is a good partial application of one of the principles of our founding charter for the Green Party which is appropriate decision-making. That means that decisions are made directly at the appropriate level by those affected. Although the people who are affected did not directly get to decide I am glad that we have listened to the voice of Kyle Lockwood.We have been supporting that campaign for 10-year passports throughout the process. My colleague Mojo Mathers agreed with the recommendation from the Government Administration Committee to review the current system with a view to extending it once that petition came to the select committee. We support this move for a variety of reasons. The policy of 10-year passports will save ordinary New Zealanders the hassle the stress and the time-consuming nature of applying for a new passport as well as saving money.There has been some discussion about what it costs. The current cost of the 5-year passport is $134.50 or $26.90 a year. The proposed fee of $180 for the 10-year passport works out to be just $18.00 a year. This proposal also brings us into line with international standards. Much of the European Union most of the Americas most of Asia and even our cousins in Australia have 10-year passports. I think it is fair to acknowledge the evidence from the Department of Internal Affairs that was presented during the select committee inquiry. I have to say that it ultimately concluded its evidence by saying that it considers a 10-year validity period acceptable. But it had serious concerns about reintroducing 10-year passports because it feared that it would encourage criminal organisations to invest in counterfeiting New Zealand passports and I think that is a fair concern.That is I guess why we are so disappointed that this National Government has been investing fewer resources in public safety through the police that would counter that. Yesterday my colleague David Clendon released figures that show that spending on the Police budget has fallen by 5.7 percent which means that there is less public safety happening and certainly less investigation. This is sadly emblematic of the National Government’s chronic under-investment in public services and that is a point that was reinforced in a report released on 8 June by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions saying that our health system for example was $1 billion worse off than 6 years ago which works out to be about $220 per New Zealander.The fact that the department’s submission identified that the change from 5 years to 10 years could lead to a revenue problem further reinforces my point that under this National-led Government our public services are scrambling to penny-pinch the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. The Government has basically been fiscally reckless by giving tax cuts to the very wealthy on their top incomes.We are assured by the evidence given at the Government Administration Committee’s review of the passport validity period that biometric passportsreduce the risks of counterfeiting and identity fraud to such a degree that the validity period could be safely extended—and that is a direct quote. However we do have some concerns. They arise from the findings of Simon Murdoch’s passport security review as laid out in the regulatory impact statementfor this bill where he concludes by saying that investment would be necessary to reduce the risks of moving to a 10-year validity period. That is why we would much prefer that the added security of biometric passportswas supplemented by adequate funding of public safety. We need to restore that 5.7 percent to the police. Although technology can be a wonderful thing it is no substitute for an adequately funded public service. We cannot and should not skimp on funding our core public services. An investment approach is absolutely crucial for our country’s security.There are other measures in this bill that we support such as better provisions for cancellation and usage of our travel documents database. In the 21st century it should not be necessary for a modern Government department to physically cancel a document that needs to be sent and received sometimes from half a world away. Also this data move will save us money and time. Despite many disagreements with my colleagues across the House on many many issues I am happy and we are happy to be working with them on this issue to make a change that was spurred on by an ordinary New Zealander. It is fantastic to see democracy in action when it actually works. Thank you.