Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14505] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. The leader of the Progressive party Jim Anderton will be supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee and although we differ in our vote on this debate and although there is debate amongst the growing membership of the Progressive party we agree on our progressive policy to support active measures to welcome migrants to minimise social and political division and to assist with settlement and integration. We agree that New Zealand must protect all from bigotry and racism. 
Politicians love to say that legislation they favour is sending a message. This bill sends two clear messages. The citizenship provisions say to every migrant: “We don’t trust you so 2 more years will be added to your probationary period for citizenship.” and the passport provisions say to all New Zealanders: “We can deprive you of the right to travel even though you have committed no crime.” The use of a passport will no longer be a democratic right if clause 27 is passed. If the Security Intelligence Service or the police believe that a personone is a threat to New Zealand’s international or economic well-being then by administrative action through the Minister of Internal Affairs that person’sone’s passport or travel document will be withdrawn. I call it “the “Ahmed Zaoui clause.”. I am sure that many New Zealanders who are appalled at the lack of natural justice through the misuse of classified information on the grounds of national security to deny Ahmed Zaoui fair treatment will give it the same name. 
Under the bill the individual will have to prove to the court that the Minister has not acted with due cause and as thousands of New Zealanders who will be supporting Ahmed Zaoui this Sunday 1 August know it is nearly impossible to disprove classified information. The test in clause 27 is not that the matter must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nor is it on the balance of probabilities. The Security Intelligence Service or the police do not even have to have accurate information. All they have to do is produce credible information that reasonably supports the allegation. The bill does not help us build together; it divides us. The bill places unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles in the path of those who made New Zealand their home by choice. 
There has not been any consultation with the public. Perhaps some favoured groups have been in the know but with such an anti-democratic set of measures perhaps that is to be expected if not desired. Why did the Minister for Ethnic Affairs who is well paid not consult with ethnic communities? The same goes for the Minister of Immigration for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs and for any other Minister who has responsibility. The same question can be asked in terms of other legislation but in this particular legislation which withdraws rights and sets up hurdles there was an added responsibility. The opinion of responsible groups should also have been sought with the introduction of a new power—that is the withdrawal of a passport or travel document on the say-so of the Security Intelligence Service. We have a real stake in the fair treatment of migrants everywhere because New Zealanders are also emigrants in large numbers. 
Politicians of all kinds front up at ethnic gatherings to extol the virtues of migrant communities. They praise in gushing tones the colourful and exotic costumes the wonderful and tasty foods the sacrifice and the academic cultural and sporting achievements. No praise is too fawning particularly at election times when votes are keenly sought. But on the other side of town those same politicians and parties will pledge that they will tighten immigration rules and that migrants who commit serious crimes will be deported—which has always been the case for non-citizens except in exceptional circumstances—and that they will not allow us to be a soft touch for refugees or illegal migrants. They are happy to amalgamate immigrants and refugees as a single term of insult. Dr Allen Bartley of Massey University himself a migrant from the United States got it right when he said: “When in the 1990s Winston Peters talked about foreigners inflating housing prices and driving up interest rates I knew on an intuitive level that he was not referring to me.” Peter Brown was right: other parties have listened to New Zealand First and have capitulated on these issues. These other parties are happy to claim they are the migrants’ friends when they want the votes delivered yet they are responsible for the bureaucratic and inhumane regulations that I am afraid are governing immigration policy and law and the treatment of refugees. Now the Labour Party wants to add a further oppressive layer. The unjustifiable changes to citizenship in granting the Minister power to seize passports are being smuggled in under the guise of fighting terrorism and people-smugglers. But a close examination of this bill shows that it has nothing to do with any of those particular aims. In fact people-smuggling as the former Minister of Immigration said in this House has declined internationally and that has also been the statement inside the United Nations. 
The first point I want to turn to is that of 5 years of residence instead of 3 years of residence for citizenship. To be granted the right of residence in New Zealand applicants undergo a rigorous thorough and lengthy check. It is also expensive. They must prove to be of good character have medical fitness and fit the particular category under which they have applied. It is not easy it is not quick and it is not a soft touch. Many years can pass before the green light of permanent residence is given. Much is sacrificed to start a new life. Immigration forms proclaim New Zealand the right choice. They promise much but on arrival it is not easy for every migrant. Our under-resourced resettlement programmes provide limited assistance. Many migrants face qualification recognition difficulties and now we are saying: “We don’t trust you.” What will be found out further about a resident after 5 years—which will become 6 years while awaiting the decision on the application—that was not available by 3 years? Does membership of al-Qaeda surface only in the fourth year of a person’s residency? 
The Progressive Party’s policy is to give adequate resources to assist generally with settlement for migrants. That is what we want to put into immigration policy not these types of repressive measures. No other permit will be counted as part of the 5-year period. I have a friend who entered New Zealand to undertake a masters degree. He was on a student permit and attained his degree after 2 years. His department thought highly of him and granted him a tutorship. Later he studied for a doctorate. He contributed scientific papers that were highly commended. He fell in love with a New Zealander his children were born here and he became a partner in a local firm in his profession. Four years later he and his family made the decision that they were not going to live in dad’s home country. Two years later he applied for citizenship. His time in New Zealand was taken into favourable account and he was granted citizenship 6 months later. Now the family can all travel to Australia for a holiday without dad having to queue for a visa and having the humiliating experience of being rejected because he is not from a favoured OECD country. Now he can stand for his children’s board of trustees at their school he can join the army if he wants to and he can stand for Parliament under the Progressive banner—which I believe he is going to do. 
Under clause 4 of this bill none of his time prior to residence would count. Why? He might be a terrorist. Why? He might be involved in people-smuggling. I do not think so! “Until death do us part” is what I refer to as the marriage clause. Under present policy marriage to a New Zealand citizen may shorten the 3-year waiting period for citizenship but no longer under this bill—also inin clause 8. Spouses under current policy still have to undergo all the character police and medical checks of other applicants. They have to prove that their marriages are genuine and early grants are discretionary. But I always thought there was enormous support in Parliament for the special nature of marriage. At least I gathered that from all the hot air during the parliamentary debate on the Civil Union Bill. 
I always thought that sponsorship by a New Zealand citizen to whom one was married and with whom one had New Zealand – born children was a pretty special sort of guarantee that one was likely to be a good New Zealander. Why on earth do we want to take away that discretionary right? Why on earth does Labour want to introduce that punitive step? It means inequality of status for travel jobs and all the rights of citizenship within one family. Removal of citizenship for children born in New Zealand is I think an appalling step. 
The fact that children born in New Zealand—no matter what the status of their parents—automatically have the right to New Zealand citizenship has been in place for as long as I can remember. Certainly when I was in the Labour Party there was vigorous opposition to efforts to try to get rid of that when the National Party tried to do it. There have been sensible public policy reasons for this provision. It gives security of status to the children and they are not excluded from the benefits of health care and education that are automatically afforded to all other children in New Zealand. It means they are not without education or health care no matter what the situation of their parents. The stated target anyway is parents who come with the intention of their child becoming a citizen. But those parents are not by virtue of having a child who is a New Zealand citizen entitled to residence. Perhaps it is a key anti-terrorist measure. Once the child is an adult he or she will come back and practisce terrorism. That example of smart forward thinking has escaped me. 
The issue of the Security Intelligence Service’s ability to take a passport away is also a dangerous and new step. Never before in New Zealand has the Security Intelligence Service been granted a power that is the norm in countries where the intelligence services are laws unto themselves. Those individuals whose passports or travel documents are withdrawn by the Minister of Internal Affairs on the advice of the Security Intelligence Service or the police must prove to the High Court that the Minister has not acted with due cause. As Ahmed Zaoui has found trying to disprove classified information is the labour of Sisyphus. It introduces a dangerous anti-democratic practice into New Zealand. Citizens will be punished not for what is proven against them by the State in open court with the protection of being innocent until proven guilty and with all the rights of natural justice. 
The category of classified security information will now also extend to information held by the police. No wonder the responsible Ministers did not consult on the proposal. In one move we are attacking the rule of law and throwing aside the provisions in article 13 of the United Nations declaration on human rights and section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on the guarantee of the right to leave and return to one’s own country. It is time to draw a line against measures that deliver collective punishments against all migrants and measures that misuse the concern about terrorism in order to introduce a power to the Security Intelligence Service and the police that strikes at the very heart of the rule of law and the right to natural justice.