Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill

I move, That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee with an instruction that the committee presents its final report to the House on, or before, 8 November 2004.

New Zealand citizenship and passport legislation has been reviewed to ensure that there are no preventable risks to national security. This bill amends the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Passports Act 1992. The bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Part 1 amends the Citizenship Act. It provides for the acquisition and loss of New Zealand citizenship. Under this Act migrants can acquire a grant of citizenship after settling permanently in New Zealand and meeting specific requirements. The grant enables migrants committed to New Zealand to receive the benefits of citizenship, including a New Zealand passport. Approximately 20,000 people receive New Zealand citizenship each year.

One of the standard requirements for a grant is that the applicant must have been ordinarily resident in New Zealand for the 3 years before application. That is short by international standards, and can include time spent here on temporary permits, such as work or student permits. It is also inconsistent with New Zealand’s immigration policy, which distinguishes residents from temporary permit holders. To rectify it, the bill increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants must meet from 3 years to 5 years. From 1 January 2005, applicants will need to have been in the country for approximately three-quarters of the 5 years before application, including 8 months in each year. Accommodating some absences from New Zealand during the residence period acknowledges the frequency of international travel, while restrictions on absences ensure that a person has to live in New Zealand throughout the residence period to receive citizenship. In addition, time spent in the country on temporary permits will no longer count as a period of residence for citizenship purposes, and any requirements imposed under the Immigration Act on an applicant’s residence must be met at the time of application for citizenship. That will ensure consistency with New Zealand’s immigration policy.

Another standard requirement for the granting of citizenship is that the applicant be of good character. This bill amends the Act to ensure that applicants with serious criminal convictions cannot receive a grant, and that those with less serious convictions cannot receive a grant for a period of time following conviction.

The bill also removes distinctions on the basis of age and marital status inconsistent with the Human Rights Act. Currently, spouses and ex-spouses of New Zealand citizens who apply for the grant have to be ordinarily resident in New Zealand for only 2 years prior to application, and do not have to intend to continue to live here. After the bill comes into force, grant applicants who have married New Zealand citizens will have to meet the same requirements as other applicants.

The Citizenship Act lists offences relating to citizenship, including making a false statement on a grant application. However, these offences do not cover all the aspects of citizenship fraud. The bill creates new offences of unlawfully issuing a citizenship document and unlawfully altering citizenship records. These offences will carry a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment and/or a $50,000 fine.

This bill makes no changes to the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act of 1982. However, the bill does address the situation unique to Tokelau, which the Citizenship Act defines as a part of New Zealand. A person born in Tokelau is a New Zealand citizen. However, as a result of limited medical facilities on Tokelau, approximately five to 10 women a year travel to Samoa to give birth for reasons of medical safety. These children are born outside New Zealand, and therefore do not acquire the citizenship status they would have acquired if they had been born in Tokelau. To meet New Zealand’s obligations to these people, the bill amends the citizenship by birth provisions so that these people are New Zealand citizens at birth.

Part 2 amends the Passports Act, which provides for the issue, renewal, and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents. The Department of Internal Affairs issues 320,000 to 340,000 documents each year. There are approximately 2.5 million valid New Zealand passports. In general, these are valid for 10 years from the date of issue, or 5 years if the holder is under 16. International experience shows that the 10-year period is too long, because of sophisticated counterfeiting techniques. To reduce the likelihood of forgery, the bill reduces the maximum validity of new passports from 10 years to 5. Passports that have already been issued will continue to be valid for the period for which they were issued.

Currently, the Passports Act provides for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information to the New Zealand Customs Service and the Australian immigration authorities, for border security and the processing of passengers. However, New Zealand travel document information cannot be disclosed for the border security system known as Advanced Passenger Processing. Advanced Passenger Processing identifies unauthorised passengers before they depart for New Zealand, by enabling airlines to check the validity of travel document details against an up-to-date electronic record of passport, visa, and alert information held by the New Zealand Immigration Service. To allow the disclosure of information for Advanced Passenger Processing, the bill amends the Passports Act to allow disclosure of New Zealand travel document information to an appropriate agency to aid border security, facilitate passenger processing, and verify travel document holders’ identity.

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 requires States to prevent the movement of terrorists by having controls on the issue of travel documents. The bill provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document in cases where national security is threatened. That provision contains a number of procedural safeguards. For example, the decline period is restricted to 12 months, and the person denied the travel document may appeal the Minister’s decision to the High Court. The 12-month decline period may be renewed only by the High Court. The court must be satisfied that the grounds for refusal to issue the travel document still apply. The bill also provides for a court, when sentencing a person for a terrorism-related offence, to make an order forbidding the issue of a passport for a specified period not exceeding 15 years.

Another facet of the bill concerns refugee travel documents. The Passports Office issues 30 refugee travel documents a month as part of New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations convention. To formalise that practice, the bill amends the Passports Act to provide for the issue, renewal, and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents.

This bill rectifies the problems with the grant of New Zealand citizenship, and improves border security. I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill to restrict citizenship by birth to children of New Zealand citizens and residents. Currently, with few exceptions, people born in New Zealand are New Zealand citizens. Some people may come to New Zealand on temporary permits solely to give birth, so that their New Zealand - born children are citizens. Under current law those children are entitled to access publicly funded services such as health care and education. Restricting citizenship by birth will ensure that citizenship and its benefits are limited to people who have a genuine and ongoing link to New Zealand.

I hope many people will make submissions to the committee for further debate, particularly regarding the provision that the standard period of residence in New Zealand be increased from 3 to 5 years. I am sure there will be a wide range of arguments on that. I commend this bill to the House.

The Minister of Internal Affairs will not be disappointed. He will be flooded flooded with submissions on those changes.

National will support the bill going to a select committee, because we want to ensure that our passports, which entitle New Zealand passport holders to travel to approximately 50 countries in the world without having to apply for a visa, will be protected. During the select committee committee process we will make it clear that a reduction in the duration of the validity of our passports from 10 to 5 years should be accompanied by a reduction in application fees, and by efficient turn-round. We will be seeking an assurance that the power this bill bestows on the Minister of Internal Affairs to withhold issuing travel documents in the name of national security is subject to a robust process and accurate information, to ensure that that power is not abused. We support the increase in the penalty—including imprisonment terms—for individuals who forge documents or falsify claims in order to obtain New Zealand passports. National will support the Government’s potential move to introduce a provision to restrict New Zealand citizenship being obtained automatically by children born in our country to foreigners, but, once again, we want that provision to be subject to scrutiny during the select committee process. We wonder whether the Minister has done his homework; if he had, his Supplementary Order Paper would have been tabled for scrutiny by now.

However, National will be seeking amendments during the select committee to the part of the bill relating to the change of criteria for obtaining New Zealand citizenship. It is a long bow that the Labour Government is drawing in using national security as a reason to sneak in the requirement for the qualifying period to obtain citizenship to be extended from 3 to 5 years. We have not heard any good reasons for that change, and can only speculate that Labour is reacting to the concern that individuals may be leaving New Zealand as soon as they have obtained our citizenship. The minority Labour Government’s answer is to subject all newcomers to wait for another 2 years.

I have news for this minority Labour Government: since it took office, in the last 4 years, every week we have had a net loss of 496 people leaving New Zealand permanently, especially our young people, who are leaving for better opportunities overseas. They are sick and tired of the high personal tax regime here. They are frustrated by the racial, divisive policies of Labour, the growing crime rate, and the political correctness that this minority Labour Government has inflicted on our country. Labour’s naive and arrogant response is to legislate commitment and command loyalty, instead of pursuing policies that would attract our people to stay here and our people living overseas to return.

On the 9th of this month Australia announced changes to reduce the qualifying period to become an Australian citizen from 2 years to 1 year for those individuals who can demonstrate that their work or business overseas is of benefit to Australia. According to Australia, the changes reflect a modern world where people of skill and qualifications are in demand, and commitment to a country cannot be solely measured by the time one spends in the country. Among the proposed changes, individuals would have to spend at least 240 days a year, in each of the 5 years, in the country to qualify. Would we doubt the contributions made by Peter Jackson, Karen Walker, Kevin Roberts, and, shortly, Dr John Hood, even though they spend the greater part of the year overseas? Should individuals be required physically to live in a country where they are not gainfully employed, simply to satisfy that requirement? Do we prefer to pay benefits to people who cannot secure jobs here, but are here in order to satisfy the time requirement?

I believe that it is time New Zealand revamped our citizenship requirements. For far too long I have heard complaints of new migrants not fitting into New Zealand, but what are the criteria to measure “fitting in”? How have we communicated New Zealand values to our newcomers? I have just learnt today that, according to the Hon Trevor Mallard, to be an indigenous New Zealander means to have come from Wainuiōmata. Is that a criterion? Australia spells out its Government’s commitment to citizens in writing. In return, new citizens of Australia have to pledge to accept Australia’s values of respecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion. When will we implement a process of equipping our newcomers to become New Zealanders? They will have a better chance of becoming one of us if they understand the expectations and know how to acquire those tools. To make a child stay at school is quite different from whether the child has learnt anything.

I and my hard-working and competent colleague Dr Wayne Mapp have fronted up to nine public meetings with new Asian migrant communities throughout the country, with some more to go. They are outraged at the retrospective nature of this change. The effective date of the change is 1 January 2005, which means that someone who has been in the country for 2 years and 11 months by the end of this year will have to wait for another 2 years and 1 month to qualify to be a citizen. That is despite the fact that when those people first applied to migrate to New Zealand they understood that the qualifying period was 3 years. National wants to see amendments made to the legislation so that it will not affect individuals who are already here and hold permanent residence permits or long-term business visas.

Under the proposed changes, the time that temporary permit holders have spent in New Zealand would not be included in the 5-year qualifying period. So international students who come to New Zealand to pursue their study will probably spend up to 5 years here to get their first degree, then will spend another year here on a work permit, then will convert to permanent residence, which means that they would not be eligible to apply to become New Zealand citizens for up to 11 years. We want the select committee to consider whether some proportion of the time spent in New Zealand on a student permit should be counted, and what the reasons are for excluding from the new 5-year qualifying period time spent here by people who hold work visas or long-term business visas. Currently, a spouse’s qualifying period also receives special treatment. Once again, under the new proposal that will be removed. We want to hear evidence of current abuse of that special treatment.

The changes to citizenship requirements have not been well-considered. Where is the transitional period? What happens to individuals who submit their applications prior to 1 January 2005, and are turned down for various reasons? Would they be required to apply under the new law? This bill is another missed opportunity for effective changes to be made. We could make useful changes to make our citizenship more meaningful and valuable, but, instead, Labour’s knee-jerk changes are causing more uncertainty and frustration. National will support this legislation going to the select committee, primarily because of the national security measure, but we seek a lot of amendments with regard to the changes to citizenship. I want to share a statement on my website; someone wrote in and said that the retrospective changes are like an airline advertising a discounted airfare and, in mid-air, the pilot telling the passengers: “Tough luck! The fare has to go up, and unless you pay up now you’ll have to get off the plane.” That is exactly what the Labour Party Government is doing to newcomers, who are suddenly being told they will no longer qualify for citizenship at the end of their original 3-year qualifying period.

In contributing to the debate on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill, I want to say that this move is a very responsible step by this Government to look at the issue of increasing security around New Zealand passports, and tightening citizenship criteria and vetting processes. I think that most that members and the public of New Zealand can appreciate the impact of September 11. We have also had recent incidents of espionage and applications to gain, through fraudulent means, New Zealand passports. That raises some real concerns in this country, and I think that this bill is timely with regard to those security issues.

Our passport is one of the most secure and highly respected passports in the world, and it also includes visa-free arrangements with 53 countries. That has the effect of making our passport highly sought after by fraudsters and other criminals. To counter this, the bill contains a number of key changes to ensure New Zealanders continue to have a highly secure, world-class passport. But in saying that I want to say that there are elements in the bill—and some members have already identified them—that will encourage submissions and worthwhile discussions during the select committee process in relation to the changes.

The Minister has identified the right to citizenship being increased from 3 years’ New Zealand residency to 5 years, which I believe will attract a lot of submissions and perhaps some concerns amongst the people in the community. But I am pleased to reassure the Samoan community that the provisions of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act—given the historical reasons for this Parliament passing that Act back in 1982 as a form of compensation for the removal of New Zealand citizenship from the Samoan people who were born between, I think, 1924 and 1948—is not changed in any way by this legislation. So I am sure that the Samoan community throughout New Zealand will be very pleased to hear that, given recent months of petition in relation to that issue.

I want to address the concern relating to the loss of right to citizenship for a child if one of his or her parents is illegally in New Zealand. The question that arises there, which I am sure members will consider at the select committee, is the question of stateless children. Will there be children who will end up belonging to no State as a result of that move? I guess some of us may have a little concern with regard to that, not only in relation to fixing up the problem of a woman coming to New Zealand to give birth so that her babies can have New Zealand citizenship but also in relation to the possibility of the babies produced by 20,000 overstayers and what their status will be.

I want to congratulate my friend and colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs on drafting this bill. It is a very good bill given the security issues, not only for New Zealand but also for the Pacific region, that must be considered given the events of September 11 2001.

There are two rights—I think one would call them rights—or entitlements that New Zealanders want, need, and expect. They are the right of freedom and the right of security. A few years back all New Zealanders virtually got those two entitlements without too much problem at all, but nowadays we live in a volatile world and things have changed. On top of that, we have become very PC, or more and more so, and we are gradually losing the right to what I would call basic free speech. New Zealanders want to be able to go where they want to go when they want to go, to see what they want to see, and to do what they want to do, with little restriction. But those things now are having to be tightened up.

For freedom, New Zealanders went to war. For freedom, men and women paid the price with their lives. For security, we pay taxation; we pay our taxes so we can have a secure nation. This bill goes quite some way, in my opinion, to making us a more secure nation.

This is a brilliant country, an absolutely brilliant country. It saddens me that some New Zealanders born and bred here do not recognise that. Perhaps I recognise it more because I came here some years ago and fell in love with the place. Thankfully, some of the people fell in love with me, and they said: “Stay here, Pete; stay here.” And I stayed here.

But nowadays things have changed. Nowadays, we have to be very careful who we let in, when we let them in, and for how long we let them in.

💬 Jill Pettis: Not too many whingeing poms!

A few years ago—and that member will be interested in this—at the time of the last election, New Zealand First members stood up and said exactly what I am saying now: we must be careful about immigration and immigrants. For our troubles, our members, and particularly our New Zealand First leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, were called homophobic, xenophobic, and any sort of phobic anybody could lay their tongue to. I had to confess that when people called me xenophobic I said I could not play any musical instrument whatsoever! But gradually, these Government members—and I commend them for it—have listened to New Zealand First.

💬 Pansy Wong: Ha ha they have!

Pansy Wong recognises that. I will remind the honourable Minister over there that at the time of the last election anybody could come to this country as long as they had 28 points. They could get 28 points by having a lot of money, and they could then just arrive. Then the points level was raised, and following that the Government, after listening to New Zealand First, said it wanted to tighten up on the English language test, and that was a good common-sense move.

Then the Government said—and not that long ago—that people had to have a job before they came here. Again, that echoed New Zealand First policy. Then the Government started to say: “We want to look at the people here who have a criminal history. We want to curtail those guys.” I think they are looking at people who commit crimes after being here a relatively short time, and looking at tossing them out. I think they are looking at that. Again, that is New Zealand First policy.

Further, and as though that is not enough—I can see Government members sitting there, feeling a little bit uncomfortable that they have taken our policies—the Government has said it will impose health checks on people coming here. It has said that it will not just be satisfied, as the previous Government was in 1999, with the ticking of a little box as people sat on an aircraft on their way here. The Government has said it will impose health checks. It is yet to do it, but it has taken our point on that very, very seriously.

We will say one other thing to Government members, and I am sure they will listen carefully. We believe that people who come to this country must have an incentive—an encouragement to integrate into our society or to assimilate, so to speak. We in New Zealand First abide by a simple saying in that context: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. We say: “Don’t come here to impose your standards, your qualities, and your attitudes on this country.” That does not mean that individuals who come here cannot have some feeling and respect for where they have come from, but they have to be able to fit in and assimilate.

💬 David Parker: They need to change to rugby—not cricket.

The honourable member over there has to take some note that the British—Britain is where I come from—brought rugby, soccer, netball, and cricket. Does he acknowledge that? I thank the member for acknowledging that.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: But we don’t like warm beer.

Ha, ha! All I can say, before I get too carried away with my own glory, is that New Zealanders can do most of those things far better than the people who invented them—and that pleases me no end.

This country has three major attributes. First, it is a beautiful country physically. It is an absolutely gorgeous country physically. Second, it is filled to a very large degree with hard-working, decent, flexible, friendly people. They are regarded very, very highly when they go overseas, and we should be proud of New Zealanders and their achievements in this country. The third and final attribute this country has—but not final from my point of view—is that we do not have too many people. Four million people, or just over, is enough, and that number should grow naturally. We do not have to fill this country with whoever wants to come here—any johnny-come-lately who feels uncomfortable here, there, or anywhere. We can afford to be selective, and we must value the space this country has. If people want the rat race they should go to London, Tokyo, or wherever they want, but we should value the society we have here.

This bill goes quite some way to putting on some controls. I would like to say that New Zealand First is totally happy with the bill, but on our reading of it we can find some concerns. One concern is that we are not yet convinced that the life of a passport should be reduced from 10 years to 5 years. We know that the Minister has a reputation for revenue gathering, by his attitude to the police collecting money from drivers—quite unfairly in many cases—and we think this could well be another smart little trick the Minister has come up with to get a few more dollars for the Government.

We also have concerns that this bill does not stop pregnant people from coming to New Zealand from here, there, and everywhere, from having a baby here—who automatically becomes a New Zealander—and then from moving on to another country.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: There’s going to be a Supplementary Order Paper on that.

Based on the New Zealand First member’s bill in the ballot? I am very pleased to hear it. Yet again, the Government is listening to New Zealand First. I thank the Minister very much for that advice.

New Zealand has a high standard and it has to maintain that high standard, if for no other reason than that people who become New Zealand citizens get automatic entry into Australia. As much as we want to battle with the Australians on the rugby field and the cricket field, I think there is mutual respect for keeping both our countries safe and secure for the respective peoples in our nations. Therefore, we have to have a secure control system over people who come here and become New Zealand citizens.

I think this Government has really listened to New Zealand First, and I commend it. We will support this bill’s referral to the select committee.

I am delivering this speech on behalf of the Green Party spokesperson on human rights, Keith Locke. He prepared this speech but he is unable to be here.

The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, even though it does contain some good and useful measures. The bill continues a trend in other legislation that deals with so-called national security or anti-terrorism matters—a trend that is to take away the prosecution and punishment of people from the judicial processes and put that prosecution and punishment into the hands of Government officials—in this case, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Under this bill, the Minister can refuse to issue a passport to a New Zealand citizen, and can even take away an existing passport on the grounds of “national security”. We see that as very dangerous. The Government will try to assure us that it is all fine and dandy, and that that power will be used only against those planning serious offences such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand, etc. But surely a New Zealander doing something seriously unlawful should come before a court and should not be dealt with outside the court by a Minister who has the power to take away his or her passport. When I have asked about that I have been told: “Well, the State might not have enough evidence to get a conviction in a court.” That is exactly the problem we are seeing around the world, and at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay where politicians and their appointees give themselves the right to judge and punish people outside a judicial process. That is something we should not tolerate here.

Another argument given to us is that: some “national security” accusations cannot go before a court, because the information we have is classified and the overseas jurisdiction we obtained it from will not allow disclosure in any court. [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not able to hear myself think. I ask for a little bit of order in the House. Could we deduct that time from my speech? I think it was about a minute when I was trying to get that point across.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry.

Therein lies a serious problem. We are even more aware today that the intelligence services we get most information from—the American, British, and Australian—make significant mistakes, because sometimes they are serving political agendas: either their own or those of the Governments they serve.

There is a dangerous provision in this bill that allows so-called classified information against a New Zealander, whose passport has been taken away on national security grounds, to be withheld from him or her in subsequent appeal proceedings before the High Court. Having a passport is a fundamental right of New Zealand citizenship and should not be mucked around with in that way. Sure, the person affected has a right to appeal to the High Court, but that would be a long, involved and costly process, during which the person’s overseas travel plans would be suspended. There is no justification for giving the Minister the power to take away our passports instead of charginge us in a criminal court if we do something criminal or conspire to do something criminal.

There is an additional problem, in that the definition of who is a terrorist in the Terrorism Suppression Act is somewhat loose, and could be applied to New Zealanders who support liberation movements overseas. The liberation movements led by Nelson Mandela and the East Timor leadership would have qualified as terrorist organisations, in that those involved launched major destructive action against the State and even took part in armed actions. The African National Congress put bombs in Government facilities.

If we remember back to the 1970s and early 1980s the Muldoon Government of the time regarded anti-apartheid leaders like Tom Newmnhaman and Trevor Richards as traitors, particularly when they went to conferences overseas and attacked Muldoon’s collaboration with the apartheid regime. Newnhamman’s and Richards’ international travel could well have been curtailed if the then Minister of Internal Affairs had had the power to take their passports away, as this bill gives the current Minister the power to do. Let us not say we are just being fanciful here;: we have seen supposedly democratic Governments do that. In the 1950s the US Government took away passports from its critics, including respected persons such as Paul Robeson, on the grounds that he was a communist sympathiser and a threat to America. We are not suggesting that George Hawkins, the current Minister, would start taking away the passports of Kiwi dissidents, but legislation must be written with future less-tolerant Governments in mind.

Several provisions in the bill seem to be driven not from any proven New Zealand need but from a desire to do what bigger Anglo-Saxon countries do. Those other countries are driven to impose excessive restrictions on people as part of their so-called war on terrorism. There is no demonstrated need to extend the qualifying period for citizenship from 3 to 5 years. To add insult to injury the provision has been made retrospective, which is something legislation should embody only in exceptional circumstances. In this case any changes to the qualifying periods should apply only to people arriving after the passage of the legislation, at least.

Changes to the qualifying period most detrimentally affect New Zealanders with foreign-born spouses—and the spouses themselves, whose qualifying period will go from 2 to 5 years. There was, and still is, a strong argument for spouses to be given preference in terms of a qualifying period. A New Zealander can be severely handicapped when he or she travels abroad, often to countries where a New Zealander has visa-free entry, if his or her spouse comes from a country—usually a poorer country—whose citizens have difficulty getting a visitor visa. A 2-year qualifying period helps to overcome this problem and should not be departed from.

There is no good reason, either, for a legal requirement that new citizens take an oath or affirmation of allegiance at a public ceremony. The practice is desirable, and most new citizens are happy to go through such a ceremony, but why does it need to be written into law? Kiwis do not mind publicly demonstrating their patriotism—and we do it well at rugby tests—but we do not like to be told we have to do it. The legislation of public citizenship ceremonies has an American, showy, “hand on heart; salute the flag” whiff about it. We all know where the super-patriotism, or false patriotism, of the Americans has got them—that is, into all sorts of unnecessary wars.

The bill also makes it unnecessarily tough to grant citizenship to a resident who has a minor conviction. Someone committing even the most minor offence in the last 3 years is excluded from citizenship, unless there is a special exemption from the Minister. We believe that the law should be more flexible on that.

There are some security arguments for reducing the currency of New Zealand passports from 10 years to 5 years, but that is going to be a hassle for many New Zealanders, particularly those who happen to be overseas when their passport expires. However, I do not think we should fool ourselves that that is much protection in itself. Good police work, like that which led to the apprehension of two Mossad agents, is the way to protect our passports.

Finally, we wish to discuss a provision that is not yet in the bill, because the Minister has indicated he may add it later via a Supplementary Order Paper on the bill. It is a provision to take away the automatic citizenship granted to people born here if they are born of people who are not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. This automatic right of citizenship is a longstanding right, which applies in some other countries as well. It guarantees that babies born here of visitors or migrants never end up as stateless, and that they are provided for properly while in New Zealand, as our Government is committed to provide under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should take away that right only if we have good reason, and none has been provided yet. Some women were coming here, we are told, to exploit free maternity services, but that avenue has been blocked off. One or two other women have visited here to give birth, with them paying the cost, in order to give their babies New Zealand citizenship, but that does not amount to a problem that would cause us to change our law. In some ways we should be flattered that people think so highly of us that they will move here for that purpose.

There are too many unnecessary provisions in this bill, and too many that are offensive to our civil liberties, for the Greens to support it. I am sure that many people have, as I have, watched the film that is beginning to screen nationwide tonight,: Michael Moore’s new film, Fahrenheit 9/11. We hear a lot in that film about the Patriot Act and the erosion of liberties within the American nation under the Bush administration. We should not be complacent. Some of the provisions in this and other legislation that has slipped through this House in recent years have eroded our individual civil rights and increased the surveillance of the State. That is something to which the Green Party is totally opposed.

I rise to speak to this bill on behalf of the ACT party. ACT New Zealand will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee but would like to voice various concerns we have. I will not spend a lot of time on many of those as they have been already articulated by the National Party member and by Mr Brown of New Zealand First.

Mr Brown spoke of the rights of freedom and the rights of security that New Zealanders should have and do enjoy. We certainly agree with those points. . New Zealanders should have the rights of freedom and the right to be able to travel. But the role of the Government is also to provide safety and security for its citizens. The first part of the explanatory note of this bill states: “The recent increase in international terrorism and people smuggling has necessitated a review of New Zealand’s citizenship and passport legislation to ensure there are no preventable risks to national security.” This is the case, and I do not think anybody would disagree. The question is how we go about ensuring that these preventable risks do not occur.

I think it is also important to remember that until quite recently the Prime Minister was given to repeating on many occasions that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment. Some might well question why this bill is necessary if that is indeed still her opinion. I think, though, that recent events have moved us on from there and that everyone in the House agrees that some revision of our law is necessary. As I said, I will not go over all of the reservations we have. Those will be addressed by the select committee and we will be participating fully there.

I will briefly touch on a few issues that we are particularly concerned about. The first is an issue that has been raised by other members of the House, and it is one that I spoke out about quite recently—that is, the issue of women coming to New Zealand to have their babies, firstly because they want their children to be born in New Zealand and therefore be entitled to New Zealand citizenship, and, to a lesser extent, because care is free to pregnant women and babies in this country. Certainly, we do not endorse this practice as something we would like to see happen routinely, and we do know that it does happen. We will look with interest at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, which he has touched on very briefly, to see what that contains. Obviously, we cannot say one way or the other whether we will be supporting that until we see it.

There is also an issue of overstayers having children so that they can stay in the country, and that is not a practice we endorse. Another thing that seems to be apparent in much of the legislation recently introduced into the House is increased ministerial power. That is becoming evident in many bills. We will be looking very closely at any provisions in this bill that will see ministerial power increased and at what effect it might have in a practical sense. We certainly believe in the power of the law. Law must be enforceable and routinely enforced and not taken away from people by the Minister making decisions off his own bat. . So we will be looking to see where we think the Minister might be increasing his power, both unwisely and inappropriately.

I come now to the second part of the bill, which deals with the passport provisions, and I will voice ACT New Zealand’s concerns about this particular part. The Minister has said that the Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealanders can travel freely with a secure passport. Of course, this is something that everybody wishes to see. He goes on to say that to ensure this the bill would reduce the validity of the New Zealand passport from 10 years to 5 years. We can see no good reason for this to happen, and there are many reasons for our concern. Firstly, we too are concerned—as I think the New Zealand First member mentioned—that this Minister has been very good at revenue collecting in his various portfolios. We would be very loath to see a stealth tax brought in under the guise of national security. That would be a very retrograde step.

We believe in the national security provisions put forward in this bill, but we do worry that bringing down the time limit of a passport is just another way of gathering revenue. We see no evidence of a regulatory impact statement, and no cost-benefit analysis that would support doing this. We worry that this might perhaps be a knee-jerk reaction. As I say, we can think of no good reason why bringing the life of a passport from 10 years down to 5 years would actually change anything at all. Fraudsters are very clever people and no matter what the system is, they are very good at finding ways around it. We would be very loath to see the 99.9 percent of law-abiding New Zealanders, in this sense, punished in order to try to stop those who have very cleverly managed to gain passports fraudulently. Bringing the life of a passport down to 5 years will see absolutely no change in this practice at all. Certainly, we do not want to see it increasing, but reducing the life of a passport will not deal with the problem. The international standard for a passport is 10 years. This Government seems keen to make us world leaders in many areas—I will not go into that—but there is no reason why we should be a world leader in this respect and bring the life of passports down to 5 years.

ACT New Zealand does support this bill, but with grave reservations in many areas. We look forward to the bill being examined in close detail at the select committee. I go back to the intention of the bill once again. We agree with the reasons for the bill, but we need to look very carefully at how we go about ensuring that there are no preventable risks to national security. We certainly do not want to see law-abiding New Zealanders—and that accounts for just about every single one of us—disadvantaged in any way as a result of this legislation. We support the bill’s referral to the select committee, and we await a further decision about our support or otherwise at that time.

I rise on behalf of United Future to contribute to the debate on this bill. It is refreshing for once to support a Government bill that I think, generally speaking, does everything it sets out to do. In a sense, the bill is all about personal responsibility and accountability with regard to the integrity of the passports and citizenship of New Zealanders. I just wish that some of this thinking would spill over into the economic sphere of life, and to some of the policies that this Government would then have there, as well.

I think the idea of increasing the time period when an applicant can be considered for citizenship from 3 years to 5 years is a very good point, in so far as citizenship of New Zealand is a matter of great privilege. Having that extension of time allows us to ascertain the value of somebody who wishes to partake of New Zealand citizenship. There are all too many cases of individuals coming over here who sometimes want to become New Zealand citizens just to have a backdoor way of getting into Australia. That is a privilege that New Zealanders rightfully have and want to maintain for themselves. In terms of assessing whether applicants are of good character, I would like to see a strengthening of the provisions regarding applicants with serious criminal convictions, or who have had 5-plus years’ imprisonment, and so on, who generally will not be granted citizenship. There is no legitimate reason I can think of for inviting criminals from overseas who want to partake in the citizenship rights of this country. Obviously it would have to be considered on a case by case basis, depending on the laws of other lands. However, I think such provisions would provide a very good screening process, and during the select committee process I would like to see them extended and tightened up a little bit further.

Some people have made the comment that they do not see any need to have a law requiring applicants to take an oath at a public ceremony. If people cannot be bothered to get out of their homes, get off their butts, and say that they want to become citizens of this country, then, quite frankly, why should we be bothered to give them that privilege. It is a privilege to be a New Zealand citizen. Countless people around the world testify to the fact that they want to come here. They want to live here. To have somebody stay here for a little bit of time, hand over a bit of money, and then just, whoops-a-daisy, become a citizen of this country, is pathetic. We ought to instil a sense of pride, and I think taking an oath is the least people can be expected to do to gain citizenship of this country.

New offences for unlawfully issuing or removing a citizenship document have been created, with a maximum of 10 years in jail or a $50,000 fine, and the maximum penalties for existing citizenship offences are increased. That all goes to the integrity of citizenship. It has been mentioned that there is no reason for the validity of passports to be reduced from 10 years down to 5 years. I had the same idea myself until the time when I had a look at how passports are made, and saw just how quickly they can be forged by people overseas. We need to keep up with technology. The bad guys are catching up very quickly, and a 5-year window of opportunity would shut some of that down.

We do not want visitors coming here abusing the generosity of our taxpayers, and having babies at our expense—babies who are then provided with citizenship as a bonus. That loophole has been closed, and this bill will extend that. We want to have a look at counterfeit passports to ensure that they are not easier to make. We want to take a look at who we are inviting into this country, particularly with the threat of terrorists and, perhaps, of Israeli agents, as well. We want to maintain the integrity of our passports.

Finally, I want to say that the contribution of the disembodied Green member Keith Locke, who would advance the most libertarian social agenda while also holding the most socialist economic views, strikes me as being rather absurd. He presumably wants public anarchy funded by socialist tyranny, but that is another issue. On behalf of United Future I say that we wholeheartedly support this initiative of the Government. We look forward to seeing the bill at the select committee, possibly with a few amendments to make it more rigorous. This is fine legislation in the making.

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 in in 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.

It is always good to follow an optimist. When the member said that ProgressiveAlliance membership is increasing—a 100 percent increase from two to four—it is really good, especially when it is going to have some candidates. This is an important bill. We have some reservations about it, and I will canvass these as we go through, but we will be supporting it to the select committee.

People can be very proud and privileged to be citizens of New Zealand. I am certainly one. Our family came from Germany originally, back on 9 May 1851, and I am proud to be a Kiwi and to have the rights of a New Zealander. So it is important that we look at what is best for the country and how we can add value to it. But we do have some concerns. First, I want to highlight the proposed changes. That has already been done but I think it is important that we put on the record what these are. We will then be able to debate them during the bill’s progress, especially during the Committee stage when, after the bill has been examined by the select committee, we will have an opportunity to debate it on a part by part basis. The qualifying period to become a citizen will increase from 3 to 5 years. That is a major concern, in that many people living here fail to qualify if they have been overseas within that 3-year period.

I have a letter here from a constituent, which has gone to the Minister’s office, and it is appropriate that I read it out. I have the writer’s permission. The writer is Dutch, and this is what he says: “I have been in New Zealand since 1973. I have a Dutch passport with a permanent re-entry permit without any travel restrictions. At the end of last year I started New Zealand citizenship proceedings and had an interview with a member of Internal Affairs. The applications with the submission were sent to the Minister. During the interview I was told that the Minister would not approve my application on the grounds of being out of the country for more than 1 year during the past 3 years.”—that is what the law says. “Every year, we spend the winter months in tropical parts of Australia—Queensland in particular—from June through to the end of October. We have family over there, and we do extensive travel. My wife is 71 and I am 73 years of age.”

So here is an example of someone who goes overseas for a period, at that age, to see family. Yet he has lived in New Zealand continuously since 1973. The point is that because he has not been here for that 3-year period, as he had gone to see family, he is not eligible for citizenship. That is what the law says. So one of the proposed changes that the Minister is advocating is that this provision go out tofor 5 years. It will be 5 years before a person will be able to apply for citizenship. Yet these people have been here for 31 years, since 1973.

There is another case—and this certainly will be interesting when we have the Committee stage—of a person who lives in my town. This person has been here for many years. The person is very experienced and very professional, doing work for Goodman Fielder, over in Fiji. This person was out of the country for 3 months, that is all. In that period the person did not have the required 3 continuous years to be able to go for citizenship. This person, a well-known citizen, has actually missed out on citizenship. This person has come back to New Zealand and lives in Matamata, where I come from. Such persons will, of course, be further disadvantaged by this provision now going out to 5 years.

If we were then to look at another part of this bill, which we think is going to be quite onerous, it is that passports will need to be renewed every 5 years instead of 10 years. WNow we do not have any difficulty with making sure that those passports are up-to-date and, importantly, that the scrutiny that goes into passport applications right at the beginning is very, very thorough. That is fine. But if we are going to reduce that to a 5-year period so that people have to go through the process again to get a renewal of a passport, the costs associated with that are going to be horrendous.

I have here the figures for application fees for passports. To get a standard service it is $71; to get an urgent service it is $146; and for a call-out service it is $401. So the costs associated with getting a passport are horrendous. If we then look at what children under 16 years of age must pay, a standard service is $36. For an urgent service it is $111, and for a special call-out it is $366.

So huge costs are associated with getting a passport in the first place, then to reduce the time for which a passport is valid from 10 years down to 5 years will put immense pressure on those people who can ill afford it. It is just an extra compliance cost.

I have here the estimates for 2004-05 and a record of some of the questions that were asked. One question asks: “What was the breakdown of the user charges from the department?”. The fees from births, deaths, and marriages were bringing in just over $8.5 million; passport fees were bringing in $21 million; and citizenship fees were bringing in $10 million. The Minister said that there are about 2.5 million active passports at the moment. When I look at these figures, huge amounts of money are coming in to the Department of Internal Affairs. Some years ago on the Regulations Review Committee we had an issue whereby the department wanted to increase passport fees, and at that time it was looking at cross-subsidisation. As members will know, there cannot be cross-subsidisation when there are fees and duties; there can only be cost recovery. So we are concerned about that issue.

If we look at what will happen in border protection and border security, we are quite comfortable with that. The House has just been considering the Border Security Bill and we saw that the increased costs to people who are importing and exporting will be about $20 million. It was an argument about private good versus public good, and during that time a great debate went on as to who should pay, whether the costs were relevant, and, more important in relation to this bill, whether reducing the length of time of a passport from 10 years to 5 years would make better citizens out of New Zealanders.

National is concerned about the lack of provision in the bill for another issue, and I quote here from a question in a Department of Internal Affairs paper: “I have heard reports that babies of non – New Zealand citizen foreign mothers born in New Zealand will no longer get citizenship. Is that correct?”. The answer was: “No, the bill contains no reference to citizenship-by-birth issues.” National is very concerned about that provision.

It is just a cheap way for people to come to New Zealand, have their children, and then opt out. Those children then become New Zealand citizens, because they were born here, and National is very opposed to that. It is citizenship by stealth. If this bill is a security measure, if it is to help improve the security of New Zealanders and New Zealand, it is a back-door attempt. That is the reason why we are opposed specifically to the clause that provides that if someone has a child born here, and the person is not a New Zealand citizen, that child will get New Zealand citizenship.

We will debate that issue at some length during the select committee. We want a clause introduced into the bill to prevent that from happening and prevent the right of people becoming New Zealand citizens just because they happen to be born here to foreigners. I give notice that this is a major concern of National and in the select committee we will make sure that that voice is heard and also during the debate. If the clause is not included in the bill we will move an amendment to make sure that that happens.

Although we have voiced concerns about a number of issues, and we want to see them debated further, I do know that the Department of Internal Affairs and the passport people have done a good job in identifying some of the issues we saw happening in Thailand. However, we will be supporting the bill to the select committee.

I seek leave for the votes cast by the Progressive Party in party votes on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill to include numbers cast for the Ayes and for the Noes and to record abstentions, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. That is agreed to.

I move, That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be considered byreferred to the Government Administration Committee and reported back for consideration, and that the committee report back on or before 8 November 2004.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 65.59 p.m.