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:20094] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate of the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. This bill shortens the period of passports from 10 years to 5 years and it appears to regularise or make similar a whole lot of ministerial powers around issuing travel documents including temporary documents refugee certifications and so forth. 
So when I read it together with the report of the Government Administration Committee I am trying to get some kind of understanding of the theory that underlies it. What is the concept this Government has of what it means to be a New Zealand citizen? Obviously the much more crucial tests are set out in the law governing immigration in the Immigration Act but this bill reflects the views about what New Zealand citizenship means or should mean. I have a serious concern that this Government regards citizenship as a right or an entitlement of people who happen to come here instead of regarding it as a privilege—a right for those who were born here and a privilege for anyone else. 
 Well I am afraid the bill does not set that out. I was stunned to hear that New Zealand First is planning to vote for it. Because when I look at the most troublesome areas I see that the refugee position is identical to the position— 
Peter Brown 
: We cannot get it 100 percent right! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Peter Brown of New Zealand First is asking for a bit of tolerance. He says that he cannot get it 100 percent right. Well— 
Peter Brown 
: No the Government— 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Government? But I am afraid that Mr Brown got it wrong yesterday as well. Twice in 2 days is getting a bit rough! 
But in this case the refugee travel document powers read in exactly the same terms as the Minister’s powers in relation to other forms of travel documents including passports certificates of identity and emergency travel documents. I am sure that the people who drafted the bill thought that that was tidy. They like to see those sorts of provisions look similar. It means that the legislation is easier to administer if the provisions are not very different but I think that it is simply wrong that the Minister will face Ahmed Zaoui - type objections because when refusing to issue a New Zealand refugee travel document he must establish on reasonable grounds—in other words the courts are openly invited to second-guess the Minister’s reasoning—that the person is a danger and intends to be a terrorist to proliferate weapons of mass destruction or to deal in unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage. 
I believe that those tests may be perfectly appropriate for restricting the travel plans of New Zealanders. People in this country should expect a very high threshold before any politician—any Minister—can interfere with their rights of free travel. But to impose that exact same extremely high threshold on someone who has absolutely no claim on New Zealand other than our humanity is quite wrong. ACT believes that to provide that the Minister’s reasoning has to pass that very high threshold of “unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand carried out for purposes of commercial or economic gain” is selling New Zealand citizenship very short. For example that would not cover the Islamic militant who just decided to introduce foot-and-mouth disease because that would not be designed or carried out for purposes of commercial or economic gain. 
Why have such a ridiculously high standard? Why not just say: “Look mate we’re a humane country but if you give us the slightest grounds for reservation go somewhere else.” There is no right to live in New Zealand for anyone who was not born here—no right whatsoever. This bill sets up an absurd threshold of refugee entitlement unless we can prove they are absolutely rotten. That is quite wrong. 
It goes further. To withhold that travel document the Minister must also establish that there is no other way of effectively averting the danger to the security of New Zealand. Well of course the first thing the refugee is going to say is: “You can avert this. Just put a bracelet around my ankle and tell me that I can’t move outside this suburb.” There would be many ways by which the court would be satisfied that there is some other means of averting the serious danger. This legislation does not state anything about cost. It does not state that the method of averting the danger should be for reasonable cost. It states “cannot be effectively averted by other means.” It should have stated of course “any reasonable means” even if one accepted this test for the first stage. 
Then the bill states that the Minister cannot refuse the travel document unless that refusal will prevent or effectively impede the ability of the person to be a terrorist or carry out other damage. That is an incredibly high threshold. It is a perfectly appropriate threshold for a New Zealander but unless I have misunderstood it will apply to people who are not New Zealanders and about whom we may know very little or we may have only suspicion. Suspicion should be enough. Being here should be a privilege and I cannot believe that this Government would come up with a bill like this after the $2 million of expense on Ahmed Zaoui and all of that aggro and put its head back into the same noose. In fact it has put not its head but New Zealand’s back into that noose. 
Then the Minister has to justify the refusal to the refugee. He or she “must notify the person in writing of the refusal and the reasons for it;”. It is unbelievable. I cannot understand this. The experience we have had seems to mean nothing to this Government. I can only assume it is yet another instance of the Government jumping to the order of its foreign masters and those who draft international conventions— 
Shane Ardern 
: Whereabouts? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They come from places like Sudan—havens of human rights! They get on these committees—they probably never go home because it is too ghastly at home—and they swan around making up rules to make the lives of those who abide by the rules a misery while their own countries regard them as simply another form and means of warfare. I cannot understand why the Government Administration Committee did not reject this bill. It is quite possible—and I understand the difficulty when one comes to something without having seen the background—that Dianne Yates Shane Ardern Steve Chadwick the Hon David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch were persuaded that all this was fine— 
Shane Ardern 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry I say to the member I am looking at the minority view now. The National minority view does oppose several changes but as I see it it opposes only the shift from a 10-year to a 5-year passport. There is far more to oppose in this bill. There is far more that we should be raising as problems. 
I have to say again that it just suggests that the opposition of New Zealand First to a lot of the denial of this unpatriotic stuff is just slogans. When I heard that they were going to vote for this bill after the speeches and the fiery questioning from the Rt Hon Winston Peters in this House I cannot understand why all those Grey Power people are still in love with Winston Peters. If they could only listen and if they only knew how he voted and could compare it with what he says when he is talking to them at election time they would realise that they are being two-timed.