Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robson Matt: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20124] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Patrick Henry did say that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I would never say that Dr Mapp is a scoundrel but I think he should read Patrick Henry. 
I have always found it strange that those who say they are against what terrorists may stand for—the undermining of democracy and liberties—themselves will advocate measures that are anti-democratic. The question here about whether the High Court has the right to review is not the fundamental question because in our law one cannot take the right of review away from the court although it must be said that under legislation mentioned in relation to Mr Ahmed Zaoui which was passed by the National Government an attempt was made to take the right of review away from the High Court. But the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in New Zealand have rejected that attempt and say that they have not lost that right of review of executive actions. 
What is actually at stake here are some fundamental questions. Where there has been terrorist action in New Zealand for example the terrorism of the French Government we used the existing law to charge those people and convict them. No new law was rushed through. The law we had at that time was adequate to combat the terrorism. When Israeli Government spies forged papers to get New Zealand passports we used the existing law at the time. Where in this legislation is there a recognition of the fundamental principle that with regard to those who have opposed terrorism and the imposition terrorism has fought for it is the State’s responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it believes someone is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime? Where is that in this bill? It is not in the bill and it does not exist. 
More the pity that there has not been an analysis of this issue in any caucus. There are lawyers in the National Party caucus who have presumably done some constitutional law. There are lawyers in all parties in this House but I am sure that in none of those caucuses—apart from the Progressive caucus where I put up this issue for discussion and the Green caucus—has there been an analysis of those fundamental questions. 
I know that this bill will go through because the pity is there has been little thought given to it. People are saying to themselves that it will not apply to them. Fortunately there is precedent in our country that when we have passed anti-democratic legislation eventually wisdom comes through and we return to democracy. The Public Safety Conservation Act which removed fundamental rights from New Zealand and was used in the waterfront lockout against the very people who voted for and supported Labour was finally withdrawn. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s this got to do with passports? 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I do not expect from Mr Brownlee any deep thought on a matter like this whatsoever. 
However I do suggest it is important that where the aspect of a person’s passport and freedom to travel is concerned we look at what is happening around the world. Legislatures and judicial bodies are saying—as our own Justice Glazebrook has said—that we should not throw security issues as a blanket over fundamental issues. 
My amendments recognise that this legislation will be passed; what they do is to put stricter reporting requirements on the Minister who brings a passport back to this House. Keith Locke used a very good example of when the US Government took Paul Robeson’s passport from him during the cold war in America. The American judicial system has since come to realise that that was a mistake.