Cunliffe David: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7307. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I thank the “deputy cultural attaché” who has just resumed his seat Paul Foster-Bell. I would like to do something somewhat unusual not—[Interruption] Do not get your hopes up too far. Not to indicate the Opposition’s support for this Government bill—because we have been doing that on a number of measures lately based on the idea that when it is good we will support it and when it is not we will call it. On this one we think it is good and we call it.What I do want to do is something that I have not done for a while—and the honourable Minister Peter Dunne will echo this—I want to compliment him personally on the role that he has played in this. Not only is it a sensible outcome Minister but I want to personally congratulate you on the role that you have played in keeping the cost of the 10-year passport under control. For those who are not aware the Minister Peter Dunne actually overrode—or shall we say leaned against—Treasury and audit advice that would have set it at a much higher level. I think New Zealanders have Peter Dunne to thank for that. Beyond that this is a shared enterprise. It was actually Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard who brought the idea to me when I was leader of the Labour Party that we would put in our manifesto a commitment to the 10-year passport and we did. So this is a bipartisan commitment to something that is citizen-friendly taxpayer-friendly and a heck of a lot easier to use.Why then was the passport changed from 10 to 5 years? The answer is because in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11 it was decided that based on the technology at the time it was more secure for New Zealanders both travelling and at home that a 5-year passport be introduced because it was easier to control and its renewability meant that that could be future-proofed. That is why it was done even though it was always going to be a little more costly for the citizen.It was a reasonable justification at the time but as members opposite have said—and we concur—the technology has moved on. Those concerns about fraud—and I concur with the member Mr Hudson that this is an issue—New Zealand passports are highly sought after on the black market because New Zealand is a country highly regarded for its integrity and the integrity of its systems. Therefore it was right to protect the 5-year passport until the technology had advanced to the point where collectively we could be confident that a 10-year period was safe. It is common ground across the House that that time has now come. The time has come to reverse the change from 10 years to 5 years and to put it back from 5 years to 10 years. I think New Zealanders will welcome that. It makes travelling life a lot easier and simpler and in the end—again I want to commend Peter Dunne for this—less costly less costly.If I can can I note that the Department of Internal Affairs will be making plans to redeploy staff in the period after 2020 as demand drops because it stands to reason that if the passports are not being issued so often not so many will be issued. Therefore fewer people will be involved in issuing them even though they are a higher-grade document. We accept that there will be some managerial changes at the Department of Internal Affairs to accommodate that change.The Government Administration Committee has not made a lot of changes to this bill. There are a number of very minor technical amendments. I actually mean it this time. There is a phrase often in the jargon when officials come and tell the Minister that there are a few minor technical amendments to the bill and that usually means they have completely rewritten it. But in this case no it actually means what it says. The amendments are minor and they are technical.I think that in the context of the debates of the last weeks and given that this is an international matter it would not be outside the scope of this third reading speech to say that we on the Labour benches would welcome it if the Government would be equally transparent about other international matters that it is currently progressing as it is with this international matter. If we had the same level of transparency on the costs and benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no way.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —that we have on the costing of a 10-year passport the entire public—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are stretching the limits here. Just stay on the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The very analysis that the Hon Peter Dunne as Minister had to enter into which is documented in the regulatory impact statement and official advice where he quantified the upsides and downsides of all of the options and where he modelled out both the static and the dynamic effects and then made a judgment that was not necessarily in line with the recommendation but was the right call and done on a transparent and objective basis—would that the same process could be applied to other matters that I will not mention.Would that the same process of quantifying both the upsides and the downsides of what can be quantified and exposing the difference between that which is science and that which is judgment in a transparent way and following the Minister’s practice here if the effects today the static effects and the effects over time the dynamic effects—in this case the impact on the Department of Internal Affairs staff levels and processing systems—and if the same methodology could be brought to bear on other international matters well what a pleasant change that would be. What a great public debate that would engender.But on some important international matters of course that opportunity is not being afforded to the public—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back—we are not talking about other agreements. We are coming into this one.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Far be it from me to now mention other agreements. But we do want transparency. We do want good judgment. We do want to expose the difference between static and dynamic between objective and judgmental calls. I do not think that that is too much to ask.Let me summarise and conclude: Labour supports this bill. Labour thinks that 10-year passports are a good idea. They were in our manifesto last year and we are very happy to credit the current Minister the Hon Peter Dunne with a job well done in not only getting this through the Government but also getting it through at a cost that is reasonable to the taxpayer. We commend the bill. We are happy to see it on its way and it is one of many things that we would be doing too to ensure that New Zealanders get the services of Her Majesty’s Government at a cost they can afford with an intent that supports the public and the citizen interests. Thank you.