Locke Keith: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20110] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Craig McNair is right in a funny sort of way because I think that Australia would support this bill—but not for the reasons he explained. If we were the Australian Government and we were competing with New Zealand for skilled migrants we would welcome a bill that told those migrants they would wait 5 years for citizenship in New Zealand but only 2 years in Australia. Those migrants would go to Australia. Craig McNair said that migrants who waited a long time would become antagonistic. The essence of what that is about is that if no reason—and Matt Robson has talked about this—is given for extending the time period from 3 to 5 years people do get upset or antagonistic and they feel it is unjust to them. The result of that is not as others have indicated before people smashing windows or anything like that; they just say that perhaps New Zealand does not want them so they will go on to Australia which has a 2-year qualifying period. 
This bill as has been pointed out has been delayed for about 6 months in getting to its second reading. Can the Minister or anyone else in the Chamber point to one single baby born here during that 6-month delay—because some people are scared that people are coming here having babies getting citizenship for their babies and then taking off back home—that this bill would have applied to or that this bill would have prevented from being born a New Zealand citizen and claiming that citizenship? I do not think anyone can. As Matt Robson said the issue is about the provision under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of health care for every baby. We heard at the Government Administration Committee from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand a Catholic organisation a case study of what that means in practice. 
I will quote from the Caritas submission: “The complaint we have taken to the Human Rights Commission involves such a couple—a young family where the father is on a working visa under the business category and the mother on a student visa. The conditions of the working visa state that any application for social security assistance will affect a later application for residence. The couple’s intentions in working towards residence have always been clear. The arrival of a baby threw study and work plans into some confusion as they do for many resident and citizen New Zealanders. This created a period of financial hardship for the family which is not unknown to other New Zealand families with a new baby. However without family support or social security back-up the family experienced a level of poverty which was new even to the frontline social service agencies that met them. The mother and child were described by their Plunket nurse as literally starving because the mother was not producing enough milk to feed the baby and they could not afford formula. It is clear to everyone who has come into contact with this family that they are extremely hard working and will in the long term be an asset to New Zealand. We believe our society has always been made up of hard-working immigrants who accept a period of financial hardship for themselves but whose children are born into a new life.” 
What we are saying is that the family had problems with the social welfare system but under this legislation the parents will also have problems in getting critical medical help for their child. That is a very strong reason for having the current provision—so that any baby born here does have access to our medical services. I have an amendment here to enable the existing situation the status quo to prevail. 
I also have an amendment that is similar to other amendments put forward tonight to keep the status quo in terms of the 3-year qualifying period from residency to citizenship. As Matt Robson has said nobody has yet provided a good reason why that period should go up from 3 to 5 years. It is bureaucracy gone mad and the Government is just saying it will increase it because that seems to be the advice coming from the department. But there are just no reasons there. I think that the Minister should get up and explain why we have to go from a 3-year to a 5-year qualifying period. Why do we have to put ourselves at a disadvantage in the world? Why do we have to put new migrants to such a disadvantage? It is a matter of them waiting up to 10 years for citizenship. They arrive on a business work or student visa and spend a year or two on that. Then they spend a year applying for residence and it can be another 5 years of that residence before they get citizenship. It is a very very long wait.