Franks Stephen: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20111] 
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.