Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill

I move, That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill and to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission. The bill has been improved by the committee’s amendments. Part 1 of the bill amends the Citizenship Act, which provides for the acquisition and loss of New Zealand citizenship. Under the Act migrants can acquire a grant of citizenship after settling permanently in New Zealand and meeting a number of specified requirements. In the last financial year approximately 21,000 people received a grant of citizenship. One of the main purposes in the bill is to increase the standard period of residence in New Zealand for a grant of citizenship from 3 years to 5 years. That time frame will provide a sufficient basis for the assessment of applicants’ suitability for citizenship and commitment to New Zealand.

The change to the residence requirement received a lot of public comment. Most people were of the view that the 5-year period should not apply to migrants who are currently living in New Zealand. As a result, the Government amended the bill to ensure that the change to the residence requirement for citizenship would not apply to people who are already entitled to reside in New Zealand. Applications from those people will be assessed against the existing 3-year residence requirement, provided the application is lodged within 5 years of the commencement date. The Government Administration Committee has made a further amendment to those provisions. Citizenship applications from people who applied for a residence permit before the commencement date, but whose permits are issued after that date, will be assessed against the 3-year requirement.

The bill currently provides that changes to the requirement for the grant of citizenship will come into force on 1 January 2005 and, obviously that will have to be changed. Supplementary Order Paper 359 in my name amends the bill so that those changes will come into force on the commencement date.

Proposals to amend the citizenship by birth provisions have been incorporated into the bill at the select committee. From 2006 a person born in New Zealand will be a citizen only if at least one of the person’s parents is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. Restricting citizenship by birth will ensure that citizenship and its benefits are limited to people who have a genuine and an ongoing link to New Zealand. That proposal does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. No child will be stateless as a result of that proposal. The New Zealand Citizenship Act provides that every child born in New Zealand will be a citizen if he or she would otherwise be stateless. The select committee has made a change to the proposal, to make it clear that a child found abandoned in New Zealand will be a citizen by birth if investigations have failed to establish the identity of at least one of the child’s parents.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Passports Act, which provides for the issue, renewal, and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents. In the last financial year the Passports Office of the Department of Internal Affairs issued approximately 390,000 New Zealand travel documents. The bill reduces the maximum validity of passports from 10 years to 5 years. The purpose of that proposal is to reduce the likelihood of the successful forgery of New Zealand passports. The longer a passport series has been in circulation, the greater the chance is that the security features will become outdated and easily altered or duplicated. International experience shows that a 10-year period is now too long, because counterfeiting techniques have become more and more sophisticated.

The bill also 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 could be used only in very specific situations where the danger to national security cannot be averted by other means. It also contains a number of procedural safeguards. 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 select committee has amended those provisions so that, when notifying a person of the decision to decline a travel document, the Minister must provide the person with reasons for that decision. That is in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

An important amendment in the bill is the provision for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information for border security and the processing of passengers. That will provide for the disclosure of information for Advance Passenger Processing. That procedure identifies unauthorised passengers before they can depart for New Zealand, by enabling airlines to check the person’s travel document details against an up to date electronic record of passport, visa, and alert information. Currently, Advance Passenger Processing’s effectiveness as a passenger risk management system is undermined because it cannot verify the details of New Zealand travel documents.

This bill will rectify problems with New Zealand citizenship, improve border security, and reduce the likelihood of the forgery and misuse of New Zealand travel documents. I commend this bill to the House.

The Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill exposes the Labour Government’s lack of integrity more than any other legislation has done. Labour has proven to be a fair-weather friend to the new migrant community, and especially to the ethnic communities. The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers now make a habit of showering compliments on those communities at their functions—

💬 Opposition Member: And apologising.

—and apologising, yet last year they brought in this legislation to change the citizenship qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years in a hurry, without even planning to front up to those communities and explain why. Eight thousand members of those communities eventually had to resort to signing petitions and letters, and they forced the Labour Government to back down on applying the change to permanent residents who are already here.

The Minister told the House last year that the reason why this Government had decided to increase the qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years was that the period is a bit short compared with international standards. Actually, Australia’s requirement is 2 years and, if an Australian permanent resident’s overseas work and business commitments can be proven to be of benefit to Australia, the Australian Government will reduce that qualifying period from 2 years to 1 year. In Canada the requirement is that one has to be living there for 3 years during the 4 years prior to application. In the United Kingdom one has to be in the UK at the beginning of a period of 5 years. In the USA one has to have been physically present in the USA for at least 13 months in the previous 5 years. So when this change—as proposed—takes place, it will make New Zealand the toughest of those five countries.

Obviously, the Labour Government is trying to stop people from leaving New Zealand. At a time when our country faces acute shortages of skilled staff, Labour is also making an international appeal for Kiwis living overseas to return home. Well, they are not coming home, and the reasons for that are obvious: they are concerned about safety, race relations, high taxes, and the education system. But people should not worry; help is on the way. When National’s leader, Dr Don Brash, becomes the next Prime Minister, overseas Kiwis will be coming home—under our policies. Last year 20,000 New Zealanders left for greener pastures overseas. In the last 4 years, under the Labour Government, over 110,000 people have left the country. The extension of the qualifying period for a grant of citizenship will hardly address the fundamental problem of how to make our people want to stay here, because the fundamental problem is the Labour Government and its policies.

To add insult to injury, when the people who are affected by this legislation decide to apply to become New Zealand citizens they will face a very long wait, because of the uncertainty created by the Labour Government. In the Minister’s answer to a written question, he told us that the processing period for applications to become a citizen was 15 weeks in 2003 and 2004. Can members guess how long people have to wait nowadays? They have to wait 8 months—8 months of waiting in order to become a New Zealand citizen. As of February this year, 21,150 applicants were waiting to become New Zealand citizens. One has to question that. Applying to become a New Zealand citizen is a user-pays service. Adults have to pay $460 and children under 16 have to pay $230. Why could the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs not foresee this issue and plan for increased resources to be allocated? I do not expect any sensible answer from the Minister tonight, because this Minister, the Hon George Hawkins, happens to be the Minister of Police as well, and we all know that he has adopted the attitude of my three monkeys collection: see no problem, hear no problem, and say that there is no problem. It is not good enough. That is George—see no problem, hear no problem, and say that there is no problem.

During the Committee stage I will put forward an amendment—and I expect the Labour Government to support it—to introduce a mechanism that would emphasise the importance of becoming a New Zealand citizen. We want applicants to learn about New Zealand values and New Zealand systems. For far too long, New Zealanders have been complaining that new migrants will not adopt New Zealand values and understand New Zealand systems—because nobody is telling them how to do so. My amendment would introduce a requirement for new migrants to learn about New Zealand values and systems. In Australia, Canada, the USA, and the UK all the rights and obligations of becoming a citizen are explicitly spelled out. I wonder why the Minister will not take advantage of the review of the citizenship requirements to take that into account.

National is also against the reduction in the validity period of our passports from 10 to 5 years, because the Government Administration Committee was told that Australia, the United Kingdom, etc. have not decided to implement such a policy. We believe that any passport that comes up for renewal should be upgraded to the more sophisticated electronic format, but that the shorter validity period would cause more compliance costs for the individuals concerned.

National does support the measure to tighten up the process so that babies born in New Zealand to overseas citizens do not automatically become entitled to be New Zealand citizens. It is an important message for New Zealand to send to the international community that we value our citizenship. We are satisfied that a process is being put in place to ensure that babies would not be left with a stateless status.

We also support the provision to give powers to the Minister of Internal Affairs whereby he or she can withhold travel documents if there is a risk to the security of New Zealand. We were satisfied through the select committee process that a procedure will be put in place for the judicial review of that. The change is important in order for the status of New Zealand and its passports to continue to receive the international endorsement that enables us to travel visa-free to over 40 countries.

This bill has been historic, in the sense that it is the first time we have seen the largely passive Asian migrant community, in particular, decide to speak out.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: They were very angry.

People were very angry. My very hard-working, intelligent colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and I have been holding public meetings throughout the country. [Interruption] Yes, the incoming Minister of Labour and I have been holding public meetings throughout New Zealand. We have seen thousands of people turn up, feeling angry and betrayed because the Labour Ministers and Labour MPs were nowhere to be seen. It is very pleasing to see our various ethnic communities stand up and demand to have their say in influencing policy.

There are two other major changes on which I want to acknowledge the support of my fellow members of the select committee, under the chairpersonship of Dianne Yates. I am grateful to the select committee members for agreeing to amend the transitional period to ensure that people who apply now to become permanent residents are exempt from the new policy. During the Committee process to follow, I will also put forward amendments urging members to consider extending the exemptions so that they will apply to long-term business visa holders. I will explain the reasons for that later.

National supports half the changes proposed by the Labour Government, but we will be proposing amendments to the other parts of the legislation.

I thank Pansy Wong for her contribution on the Government Administration Committee. I just want to make three points. The first is that it is not valid to make comparisons with Australia, because in Australia it is harder to become a resident but easier to become a citizen. In New Zealand it is the other way around: it is easier to become a resident but harder to become a citizen. That evens itself out. [Interruption] If Dr Mapp wishes to take a call, I suggest that he do so and not yell across the House.

The second point relates to the comment that was made about babies. No baby abandoned in New Zealand would be stateless, and we conform with international law and convention on that.

The third point is that this bill makes it much easier for New Zealanders who wish to travel. Our passports, which will be renewed within 5 years, will have greater validity. We will uphold the reputation that New Zealand has throughout the world for our travel documents and the high reputation of our New Zealand population when we travel.

This bill addresses some measures that needed to be taken. It is being discussed here tonight simply because of the pressure New Zealand First has applied on immigration issues. New Zealand First has constantly, year after year and month after month for the last 5½ years while this Labour Government has been in power, been pressuring the Government and making mileage on these issues. I believe that the Government is reluctant to deal with these issues.

The reason I know it is reluctant to deal with these issues is that I was on the select committee for the purposes of this bill, and certain Labour members on that committee were saying that they were very uncomfortable with the bill. They were clearly uncomfortable with the bill. What we have here are two factions—two sides. The reason why this bill has not been advanced more quickly—the reason why it has been languishing on the Order Paper—is that Labour is split on it. Government members know that they are split on this bill. On one side are John Tamihere and 10 members who will back him to the hilt. [Interruption] He is probably on the side that is more comfortable with this bill. Ten will back him to the hilt, maybe 15 on a good day.

Then we have the National Party over here, which is absolutely too soft and wonders why it is going down in the polls. [Interruption] I am speaking specifically to this bill. I am talking about what the people of New Zealand want, and the poll tonight shows what they want, with New Zealand First’s ratings going up. As Georgina Beyer said a few minutes ago, we are only three points behind Don Brash. That is all good news.

What I am trying to say to the House tonight is that the issues the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill addresses are serious. I will go directly to the guts of the bill and refer to the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins on 29 July 2004, in which he said: “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.” This is insufficient for assessments of applicant suitability for citizenship. He goes on to say: “To rectify it, the bill increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants must meet from 3 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.”

What the Minister said was right. He was absolutely correct. But what I am saying is that it has taken 6 years for this Labour Government to heed what the New Zealand First Party has been saying. The Government knows that it is trying to shut down this issue before the election, because it has reluctantly had this bill languishing on the Order Paper for the last year or so, and now it is trying to ram it through under urgency.

One of the submitters to the Government Administration Committee was very supportive of the longer residential requirement for citizenship—it is extended from 3 years to 5 years—because he felt there was a major issue with the integrity of our citizenship. He felt the process undermined the integrity, with people coming in, doing their lag, then, as soon as 3 years was up, shooting off to Australia. He said that this new law will make people look more seriously at coming to New Zealand, and staying in New Zealand, because of the process being longer.

I received some extraordinary answers to my questions from certain submitters who were against this bill. I asked one whether he was aware that a lot of European countries have requirements of 10 years, and I cited Greece and Italy as examples. I said that the US, Australia, and the UK are also looking at increasing their requirements to 10 years. I recall the answer the submitter gave me was that it takes 10 years to get divorced in Italy. We all know that is not true, and I thought that was an extraordinary answer. Basically, the submitters did not have an answer to the questions I asked in that regard.

Another interesting comment, which I heard from Keith Locke, the Green Party member, in the select committee, was that if residential requirements for citizenship were prolonged it would make people more antagonistic. My concern is that if people get more antagonistic because their wait for citizenship is 2 to 3 years longer, then I do not think those are the kinds of people we want in our country. If people have to wait another 2 or 3 years to get citizenship, and they start smashing the windows of the Immigration Service and running around and being disorderly in our streets because we will not give them citizenship in the 3 years that they believe is their right, then those are the kinds of people we do not want in our country. Those are the kinds of people that we do not want. It is outrageous to have somebody in Parliament who says that if we extend the time to 5 years from 3 years people will become more antagonistic. Those are the kinds of people we simply do not want in our country. That is what New Zealand First says, and is what New Zealand First has been saying for many, many years.

The Government has been soft on these issues; when it has been reluctant on them—and there are members on the Government side who are shaking their heads. The fact is New Zealand First, since 1999 when this Government came into power, has been addressing this issue, along with a lot of other issues. The Government has not listened, and in the 2002 election, when New Zealand First brought up immigration as one of the three major issues that we campaigned on, it called us racists. The member over there is nodding her head. She called us racists. Now the Government is implementing those issues with this bill. She is voting for this bill tonight—voting for the very issue that she called us racist for. Now those members are starting to realise that the people of New Zealand are serious about these issues, and do not want their infrastructures in health, roading, etc., being pressurised by an increased amount of immigration and so on in respect of the issues I am talking about tonight.

I want to commend the Government for implementing another couple of issues in the bill. One is to ensure that time spent in the country on temporary permits, such as visitor permits, will no longer count as a period of residence for citizenship purposes.

💬 Peter Brown: Good, good.

My colleague Peter Brown is saying that this is a good thing, and it is.

As my time is running out, I guess I better fly through the issues. Another is to ensure that applicants with serious criminal convictions are prevented from receiving a grant, and that applicants with less serious convictions cannot receive a grant for a specified period following conviction. Another interesting issue—one that Keith Locke mentioned in the select committee—was the requirement that applicants take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand in a public citizenship ceremony. The Greens were cautious about that issue.

I look forward to speaking more on this bill in the Committee stage. New Zealand First will support it.

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!

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—

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?

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.

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.

Members have probably read the minority report put forward by Matt Robson and myself. I think the National members who have spoken, and those who are about to speak, will admit that those comments reflect the submissions more than the majority select committee report. The Minister, George Hawkins, said in his speech that there was a lot of public comment. But he seemed to imply that that public comment was only in connection with the retrospectivity of the bill—a concern that it would apply to people who are currently in New Zealand. Whereas, if one listened to the submissions, sure there was significant and large concern about retrospectivity, but there was concern about a lot of other things in the bill as well. Very few submissions supported the bill.

I want to ask the Government, and anyone else who supports the bill tonight, to explain to us why we have to go ahead and extend the qualifying period, from residence to citizenship, from 3 years to 5 years. I sat on the Government Administration Committee and I did not hear a good reason for that. We heard about security concerns, but I do not think we really thought that it takes 5 years to spot a terrorist in New Zealand; that was not the reason. The committee threw in another reason, about being comparable with overseas jurisdictions, but as Pansy Wong has pointed out, it does not hold water.

We have to realise, and this is what we found in the select committee, that extending the residency requirement from 3 years to 5 years is causing a huge amount of human heartache. We heard many submissions from people from Somalia and Iraq, and from Sikh groups, who explained the difficulties they face now in the time it takes them to get citizenship, and the even greater difficulties they will face if the qualifying period is extended from 3 to 5 years.

There has been reference, including from the previous speaker, to refugee travel documents. David Ryken, an immigration lawyer, told the committee that those documents are “useless”. Refugees cannot use them to go overseas. A lot of refugee people who have been here for a while and have refugee status want to make contact with very close relatives who are dispersed around the world. As a result of the chaos in their own country their families have dispersed, and the refugees in New Zealand find that they cannot travel overseas on those travel documents, even though they have been nicely set out by our Government and given to them.

One example of this was given by an Iraqi, who told the Government Administration Committee that his travel document provided by the New Zealand Government would not even allow him to get to his niece’s wedding in Australia because Australia, like America, does not accept those travel documents. The lack of a passport for those people, and the time to get a passport, which has been put out even further under the bill, adds hugely to the trauma of refugees and their feelings of isolation. One submission by Adam Awad and several other refugees in Wellington made the point that article 15(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a nationality. In all practical senses refugees have no nationality left to them. In the case of countries like Somalia, there is no national Government. Many have spent upwards of a decade in refugee camps around the world. To deny them official citizenship for a further 5 years is, from a human rights perspective, both inhumane and unjust.

David Ryken, the immigration lawyer, also told the committee that the extension of the qualifying period, from 3 years to 5 years, was doing New Zealand in the eye as regards attracting skilled migrants. As he explained, and he has had a lot of connection with migrants, we are in a competitive international marketplace as regards attracting skilled people. Under this bill, the best migrants will be more likely to go elsewhere—to Australia—rather than come to New Zealand and hang around for years to get citizenship here.

The Chinese community was particularly upset in that regard and made submissions to the select committee. As Pansy Wong has pointed out, a petition on that issue was signed by 8,000 people. One issue they raised was the question of long-term business visas. The expectation and the structure is that business visas would automatically run into residency and into citizenship, and not to allow business visas to be part of the qualifying period for citizenship is putting off so many people coming in under that particular visa.

There is another bad provision in the bill, which the Minister referred to. A Supplementary Order Paper was introduced that would deny automatic citizenship to babies born here, and the select committee never heard a good reason for that. It would lead to significant problems for people, and attracted criticism in the select committee as being somewhat contrary to the constitutional conventions of this country as well. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation submissions stated: “It is contrary to parliamentary convention for a Supplementary Order Paper to introduce major new substantive provisions to a bill.”

The Supplementary Order Paper came in as the select committee was sitting, and because it came in so late in the piece, most submitters were not able to see it before they put in their submissions to the select committee. The Supplementary Order Paper was unnecessary. Do we have an emergency on our hands, with all kinds of babies being born here and doing nasty things to us? It did not require a Supplementary Order Paper to be brought in, in that way. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation said that that violates the essence of the Standing Orders and “amounts to an abuse of the democratic and parliamentary processes.”

There was also the problem of whether we would get a Bill of Rights audit on the Supplementary Order Paper, and late in the piece we did get an audit but it was quite contentious. For instance, the Auckland District Law Society said: “Removing the right to citizenship by birth punishes immigrant children, not their parents, and may contravene articles 38, 24, and 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of particular concern is the right of a child to the highest obtainable standard of health and the right to education.” Giving a baby citizenship will guarantee it free health treatment, regardless of the circumstances of its parents.

The Ministry of Justice’s response, in the Bill of Rights audit, to that sort of argument was pitiful. The audit stated: “Children born in New Zealand who are not granted citizenship will still be able to receive treatment for life-threatening conditions, as hospitals are required to provide acute services, regardless of the ability to pay.” So the Ministry of Justice is saying that it is in accord with the Convention on the Rights of the Child for babies to get very sick, as long as they get free hospital treatment when they are on the point of death. Even then, will the Ministry of Justice guarantee that the parents do not get a bill for the hospital treatment of the life-threatening condition? Of course, the ministry will not.

There is also a new power in the bill for the Minister of Internal Affairs to take away a New Zealander’s passport on national security grounds. This was strongly challenged, particularly by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. One of their lawyers Rodney Harrison QC said: “The rights to a passport and freedom of movement in and out of one’s own country are fundamental human rights recognised in our Bill of Rights and international law. Until very recently citizens of this country have never been at risk of having these rights removed or curtailed. Such steps have rightly been seen as a mark of totalitarian regimes, not New Zealand’s.” He also complained that when someone does take judicial challenge to the passport being taken away from him or her, there is a problem in even getting all the information used against that person, because it can be “classified” under this bill and not made freely available to those affected.

There is almost nothing in that last speech that I would agree with, other than the silence after the member concluded and resumed his seat. I would like to say one thing, and that is this: he talked an awful lot about the rights of this person and the rights of that person, but never once did he talk about the responsibilities that go along with being a New Zealand citizen. Quite frankly, that is exactly the point. What we have to do is go back to what matters most, which is to appreciate what being a New Zealander is all about—to enjoy the privileges of being a New Zealander, but to also be aware of the responsibilities attendant on that privilege. People who talk only about the rights are people who see rights as being something to be handed out like lollies to one and all, without any sense of responsibility for what that actually means. I think that is an absolute farce and a joke.

United Future will be supporting this legislation for a number of reasons. First up, the amount of time applicants must spend in New Zealand before they can apply for citizenship has been increased from 3 years to 5 years. An applicant needs to be here for 1,350 days of that 5 years, which is approximately 75 percent of it. That requirement indicates the intent of anybody coming to live here that he or she wants to be here, and wants to participate and be a productive member of our community. That is fair and right.

The bill provides that time spent on temporary work permits or visitor permits will not be included in the 5-year period, and that makes sense. A lot of people come here for holidays and short stints. We all do this overseas—the OE—and to think that that counts for a desire to be a part of that community is grossly mistaken. That time should not be taken into consideration, and that is fair enough.

In terms of assessing whether the applicant is of good character, applicants with serious criminal convictions attracting 5-plus years’ imprisonment generally will not receive a grant of citizenship. Those with less serious convictions of less than 5 years’ imprisonment may be considered if the offence was committed more than 7 years ago, and those who have not had a sentence of imprisonment may be considered if the offence was committed more than 3 years ago. Personally, I would like to see the bill toughened up much further than that, but I am happy to live with this provision because at least it opens up the possibility of being able to screen individuals who are coming to live here. I am of the opinion that any stint in a prison overseas is good enough for those people to have their arses slung out of New Zealand—we should not be allowing them in here, at all.

To aid the administration process, the Citizenship Office will now have restricted access to immigration information in making its decision. The Minister may rescind the approval of an application if the applicant no longer meets requirements, and generally applicants must take an oath at a public ceremony. Well, why not? That is the least we ought to expect from people wanting to take up our citizenship. [Interruption] It is patriotic. That is quite right. It is one thing to expect people to front up and say that they are now part of the community, that they owe their allegiance to this country, and that they forego their previous allegiance. That does not mean that they would have to give up their culture or give up all of the things they learnt from wherever they came, but it does mean that they put New Zealand first because it is the home of their choice and we have decided to accept them. The fact that there is a political party by that name is a bit unfortunate, but seeing that everybody knows it as “Winston First”, it does not really matter.

The Citizenship Act is amended to provide that a person will be presumed to be the father of a person if he was in a de facto relationship with the person’s mother at the time of conception. To be born here will no longer be sufficient in itself to gain citizenship. Some people have criticised that provision, but it makes sense. Why the hell should anybody coming over here for a holiday with the specific intent of giving birth here be automatically granted citizenship? That makes no sense whatsoever. What vetting process do we have at present? In effect, we say that people can come into our country, drop a kid, and all of a sudden have the automatic privilege of being a New Zealander. Quite frankly, that is not good enough. People have taken advantage of that in the past, and they will continue to do so in the future. We need to close that loophole.

The key amendments to the Passports Act—I talked previously about the key amendments to the Citizenship Act—are fourfold. New Zealand travel document information can be disclosed to identify unauthorised passengers before they depart for New Zealand. That gives us a proactive capacity to do something about the characters who want to come to our country. I think that is right and proper. We should be vetting the people whom we invite to our homes.

Passports will be valid for only 5 years, reduced from 10, to prevent forgery. At first I was uncomfortable with that provision, for a whole range of reasons. I thought that the cost would be too high and that it would be a real imposition, particularly on our senior citizens, who have the time to do the travelling, and I thought about what other costs would be imposed on them. But having been privileged to see where passports are made, I understand exactly what goes into making a passport forgery-free, or at least what helps the passport makers to be ahead of the game, because forgers across the world are very quick in their ability to emulate what we provide as our passport. We have to keep the integrity of the New Zealand passport, otherwise it becomes worthless. I saw first-hand the technologies that were employed, and I understand the need for this provision to be included in the bill.

So, unfortunately and regrettably, the cost will go up. But it is a cost worth bearing because our passports will end up becoming worthless if we do not. They will be a joke and will not be accepted in a lot of other countries in the world.

The Minister can refuse to issue or can cancel New Zealand travel documents on the grounds of national security, and the court can forbid the issue of a passport. I do not think that anybody in his or her rational mind could possibly disagree with that provision. It makes perfect sense that we have the capacity to say no if we have other information that basically states that we should not allow someone to have the privilege of becoming a New Zealander.

Finally, to formalise current practice, provisions have been introduced to allow the issue, renewal, and cancellation of refugee travel documents. Those documents are different from passports, certificates of identity, or emergency travel documents and they facilitate a refugee’s international travel. Again, that comes back to a fundamental point: New Zealand is our home, and we have the right to restrict or invite whoever comes here—

💬 Keith Locke: For whatever reason.

—for whatever reason. That point is absolutely fundamental. We do not expect people from the rest of the world to be able to come here willy-nilly without our having the ability to make some assessment of whether we want them here. I think that this legislation goes a long way towards doing exactly that.

United Future will be supporting this legislation. [Interruption] Well, as I understand it, only the Greens are upset about this legislation, because they would like to open the doors to everybody who might aspire to their beliefs.

💬 Craig McNair: Open up the floodgates.

We do not want to do that.

We are a country of foreigners. We have all migrated here—whether we are Moriori, Māori, Pacific Islander, or trace our lineage from Europe, America, or wherever. We have all come here from somewhere else. We need to protect the integrity of the New Zealand border. This bill will do that. United Future will happily support this legislation.

I have been a proud member of the Labour-Progressive Government, led by Helen Clark and Jim Anderton, for 5 years. We have a coalition agreement that in its essence moves towards free education again, at a tertiary level, and free, highest-quality health care for New Zealanders, premised on a goal of full employment. All those goals I stand by, and all those are in our agreement.

But, as a Progressive Party member, I cannot support the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill before us tonight. It is unnecessary in terms of its treatment of our migrant communities that make up a small but very significant part of our population, which is always being added to and is always changing. I cannot support the erosion of the rule of law in order to allow an administrative procedure whereby a Minister of the Government can withdraw the passport of a New Zealander, and overturn the basic principle that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it has a reason to act against a citizen. I do not agree that that administrative measure should be turned upon citizens or other persons with travel documents, so that they have to go to the High Court to prove why they should have their passports or refugee documents.

In economic terms, the bill does not make sense. In Australia, our closest competitor in terms of trade, the period for getting citizenship, as has been acknowledged tonight, is 2 years. In every other form of our relationship with Australia, we are trying to move to a situation in which we as a country can compete more closely with that country. We are putting up a barrier or a hurdle for the many skilled migrants around New Zealand, whom New Zealand needs constantly, and whom all members of Parliament, I am sure, at different times have praised for their contributions to our country. Of course migrants will choose Australia. Australia says that, if they meet its tough entry requirements and become residents, within 2 years they will be assessed as to whether they can take the next step, citizenship. Here in New Zealand we are going the other way, in moving that period to 5 years. But it will be more than 5 years, because as any member who has had to put in an application for citizenship will know, it takes a year to 18 months, and the time to wait will therefore be much more than the 5-year period.

I do not speak with anger about the Labour Party, but I do make this plea to the many people I have worked with for many years in that party. The Labour Party has earned the reputation of being the defender of migrant communities. The Labour Party, because of its connection to the labour movement, has earned a reputation for its defence of the broadest democratic rights. But this bill moves away from that.

It moves in the direction of parties like New Zealand First and United Future. What do they base their type of philosophy on? Their philosophy is based on dividing people in New Zealand, and on casting slurs on people because they are migrants and have a name that can be used to vilify them. I heard the representative from New Zealand First ask tonight: if migrants do not like this bill and smash windows, what do we think of people like that? For the member to suggest that it is the reputation of migrant communities in New Zealand to incite violence—as New Zealand First’s leader often suggests against migrant people in New Zealand—is a bad path to go down, and we will rue that day if we do so.

The founders of the Labour Party, Harry Holland and Michael Joseph Savage, would never have capitulated to that form of narrow chauvinism. They would never have capitulated to the sabre-rattling of the United Future representative who talked about the loyalty of New Zealanders. People do not prove their loyalty to a country by one particular form of allegiance or speech. People show their allegiance to the place they are by being members of the community and by making a contribution.

Members of Parliament should look back at the speeches they have made at the many ethnic functions we have attended, where they extolled those communities, whatever their background, for their wonderful clothes, food, and costumes. I suspect that when many of those members said those things they did not mean a damn thing, at all. Now, they go to the other side of town and say that those migrants need to prove their loyalty to New Zealand and say exactly where their allegiance lies.

The legislation is a backward step. First of all, whereas people who have made the journey to New Zealand in order to contribute to this country have had to wait 3 years before they could apply for citizenship, we are now saying that we do not trust them and that they will have to wait 5 years. What form of nation building is that? Secondly, we have the gall to say to people who marry a New Zealand citizen that, whereas their fitness to be a New Zealand citizen could once be assessed after a period of 2 years, they will now have to wait a further 3 years before they can make an application. We are saying to people who have journeyed to New Zealand in order to have a work permit—perhaps a student who is studying to the level of a PhD, or something of that nature that takes many years, and who has made a contribution to the country—that that contribution will not be taken into account and that they will have to wait 5 years for citizenship. It does not make economic sense. It does not make for social cohesion in our country.

I now turn to the other provisions of the bill relating to our passports and travel documents. Administrative power is being given that will take away from the courts the normal practice that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed some kind of offence and therefore does not deserve a passport. Of course, people will call it the Ahmed Zaoui provision, for that reason. Whether or not Ahmed Zaoui has New Zealand residence, Algerian residence, or some other form of nationality, there has always been a principle that any person in New Zealand will be given the same rights under law. You-know-what? Do members not want that principle for New Zealand citizens who are migrants in other countries? Did we not want it for the man who died in a prison on the Ivory Coast? We are asking whether he got natural justice. Do we not want it for the many New Zealanders who live in my home country of Australia and who make up 2 percent of its prison population? People would hope that those New Zealanders had had a fair trial in Australia, and I do as well. Then why in New Zealand are we setting two forms of justice? We are making a very big mistake.

The Israelis who were caught here falsifying passports, and trying to dupe the New Zealand public and the New Zealand system, were caught and prosecuted under the law we have now. We did not need a new law; we did not need new provisions. We had strong enough provisions to catch them. All we needed was an investigative procedure.

Many New Zealanders came before the select committee, but I struggle to remember anybody who said that this was a good bill. There must have been one or two. But those submitters who were talking to us were New Zealand citizens. Did it matter whether they had been born in India? Did it matter that someone had been born in China? Did it matter that, like me, someone had been born in Australia? They were, I hope, considered New Zealand citizens.

Of course, people came before us who were born New Zealanders. The people who had been born here were the most vociferous in asking why we are taking New Zealand citizenship away from children born in New Zealand when we have given that right for many, many years, without any problem, for one basic principle—to protect the child. Members of Parliament will probably know of cases whereby people have struggled for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 years in legal battles to prove their right to stay in New Zealand.

Certainly, members of the Labour Party know such cases, because in my days in the Labour Party all members represented communities where migrants gave big support to, and raised funds for, people elected to Parliament. When I was in the Labour Party, we always protected the rights of children born here to go to school, to have health care, and to be considered New Zealand citizens.

On the economic level, this bill does not make sense. To use a market argument, through this bill we will lose a competitive edge. On a social cohesiveness level the bill does not make sense, because we are dividing people and making different categories of New Zealand citizens. With respect for the rule of law in terms of our passports, I say that not even in the Cold War, when people feared nuclear annihilation and invasion by the Russians, did the Government ever demand the right to take a New Zealand passport. The Government relied on using the law and on having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that passport should be taken, in order to meet the needs of those times.

We have just heard the traditional left rump of the Labour Party. It was interesting to listen to that speech tonight, because that member—former Labour, then NewLabour, then Alliance, and now Progressive—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Regressive.

Progressive—I know that that is an oxymoron in this particular case, but it is the Progressive Party. It was a very interesting speech made by Mr Robson, who knows a little bit about this issue.

I say to the member and to the Labour Party that this process is one of balance. I acknowledge the officials here tonight who assisted the Government Administration Committee through that process. This is an issue of balance. On one hand we have to make sure that people who come to New Zealand meet a certain standard. I acknowledge the comments made by Stephen Franks earlier on. It is a privilege to be in New Zealand, not a right—unless one is born here. It is a privilege. This is our country and our home, and it is a privilege for people to be here. But on the other hand, New Zealand is a country made up of migrants. The point that Mr Robson made was a good one. Michael Joseph Savage would turn in his grave if he could see where the Labour Party is trying to take New Zealand today.

I say to Mr Robson that there is a good reason for that, too. Most of the migrants in those days were Anglo-Saxon English from mother England. They joined the trade unions and the Labour Party—and we all know what John Tamihere has to say about them today. We all know how much control unions have over the Labour Party today, and John Tamihere is not too keen on that.

We also know that as time has moved on, New Zealand, as a European country, has almost been an accident of navigation. Captain Cook’s boat found it first. It is as simple as that. The first people to settle here were from an Anglo-Saxon background. The reality is that our near neighbours are Asian. It is an inevitable circumstance in a modern world that we will have more immigrants from that part of the world. At the moment 21,000 people have an application lodged for citizenship of New Zealand. That is appalling, given the Labour Party’s traditional, liberal view of that process. It is equally appalling that 8,000 people had to petition Parliament to bring about the kinds of changes that are being proposed. Eight thousand people had to petition Parliament, under a Labour Government.

💬 Pansy Wong: Asian people.

They were mainly Asian? Mainly Asian people had to petition the Parliament to bring about the changes, and we have a Labour Government! It is incomprehensible, as Mr Robson quite clearly stated.

There are other aspects of this bill, of course, that the National Party was not convinced of. Members of the Government Administration Committee were not convinced that those changes were in the best interests of moving forward. One of them was the argument that as modern technology is moving so quickly, passports now are easily forged, and therefore we needed to move forward to a system of renewing passports every 5 years, so we can keep ahead of the process. Even though technically that argument was robust, there was no evidence to say that that was happening. So the National Party was not in support of that particular part of the proposal.

It was equally disturbing to note that last year 20,000 New Zealanders, holding New Zealand citizenship, left this country. We have to ask why that was. There is one simple answer. We have a Labour Government that will tax them and tax them until they find a country that wants them, and values their contribution and their ability to get on in society and do well. One of those countries, of course, that has been the beneficiary of that gain has been our near neighbour, Australia. Australia has only a 2-year time frame for people to gain citizenship. This is despite the Labour Government, starting with Jim Anderton who belongs to the Progressive Party—the oxymoron in the New Zealand Parliament—that supports the Labour Party.

His clarion call on becoming the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in a previous Labour-led Government was: “Come home, Kiwis. We will fix it up. This is your home country. Come back to New Zealand. You have a new Government now, and I’m the Deputy Prime Minister.” At the same time, I hasten to add, he said: “I’m going to lower petrol prices.” What has happened? Every year 20,000 New Zealanders go overseas, and they do not intend to come back. They are telling us overwhelmingly that this Labour Government is the reason.

I say to the House tonight that this legislation is overdue in some aspects and too heavy-handed in others. It will be interesting, when the Minister takes a call during the Committee stage, to see whether the bill will end up in the same form as at present. The National Party looks forward to that process, before committing ourselves to what we will end up doing.

I have a few words for my colleagues who have spoken before me. First, I would like to talk to the United Future member. He made New Zealand First a bit of a target by saying that it is “Winston First”. I say to the honourable members over there that we would prefer that to being known as “Dunne First”, as they will be after the next election.

I have to say that Matt Robson is prepared to sell New Zealand’s citizenship very cheaply. He would give it away. I have a few words that I would like Matt Robson to take note of: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Who said that? It was President Kennedy. After listening to Matt Robson’s speech, I think it is pretty pertinent that he take note of that and digest it.

This country is a magnificent country. It has three major assets.

💬 Darren Hughes: Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Jim Anderton.

No, I am talking about assets, not exports. The first major asset is its physical beauty. Members do not need me to explain that. Does anybody disagree with that? Does anybody over there want to change that? Does anybody in the National Party want to change the physical beauty of this country? The second major asset this country has is that New Zealanders are basically and fundamentally hard-working, enterprising, and very friendly people. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody want to change that? The third asset this country has, and let me remind members to think about it very, very carefully, is that it does not have too many of those hard-working, friendly people. It has a very small population, and that is an asset.

Does anybody recall hearing of a place called Wood Green in the UK? It has made the news this very evening. A terrorist was locked up there. He was producing evil chemicals to put on cars, and if people touched them, they would die. The commentator on Television One said tonight that if he had got away with it, the situation would have been greater than 9/11. Why do I mention this? That scumbag—and that is the only word I can use—escaped. He got to Manchester. He stabbed a detective who was trying to arrest him.

💬 Brian Connell: Killed him.

He killed him, and stabbed many other policemen and seriously injured them. I do not know whether he was born in the UK, but I guess that if he was, his parents came from somewhere.

But most important, there was a description of Wood Green. [Interruption] The Minister should not make a joke of these sorts of issues. This bill is the Government’s bill to tighten up on people coming to this country. I went to school in Wood Green. I can tell you that those few years ago it was quite a different place from what it is now. I can say to you that New Zealand First—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not mind you drawing me back to the bill, but if you are going to allow idiots like that Minister to perform like that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I was not bringing the member back to the bill. I was referring the member to the fact that twice he brought the Speaker into the debate.

I have to defend myself.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking in defence of my colleague from New Zealand First, the Minister who has just entered the Chamber will be unaware that this bill has progressed since 7 p.m. in a manner in which all speakers at the second reading have been allowed a fair go without a barrage of mindless abuse coming from Ministers who have only just turned up in the House. I ask that you apply to Mr Brown the standard that other speakers have enjoyed at this second reading.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please be seated. The reason Mr Brown was pulled up by myself was that he twice brought me into the debate. That was the only reason. I have made a ruling.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At no time did I refer to the comments you made about the reason Mr Brown brought you into the debate. I made no reference to that at all, and I would not dispute your ruling in any sense. I raised a fresh point of order relating to the interjections coming from the back bench of the Labour Party and the fact that a Minister who has recently arrived in the Chamber has decided to interject on a member, when the rest of this bill has been heard in comparative silence and other members of Parliament have been given a fair go.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Brown was dealing quite adequately with the interjection. It was just when he brought me into the debate that I responded.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the point of order.

💬 Hon Annette King: It is a fresh point of order. When you were on your feet hearing that point of order, the member who raised it interjected the entire time you were trying to rule. If he is going to raise a point of order, then he also ought to obey the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I appreciate that. Can I just say to members that there is a ruling in the House that when a point of order is being taken and being heard, it is to be done in silence.

I need to explain—and I accept your ruling—that when I was responding to the Hon Rick Barker, I did say “you” but I meant him. I said it twice, and I apologise.

New Zealand First is well on record as wanting strict criteria to be applied to people who come to this country. We want them to come here in good health. That is for obvious reasons. We are not talking about coughs and colds; we are talking about basic health. Why should a person come here heavily diseased with whatever and be an expense to the taxpayer? That, we think, is reasonable, sound, social and economic policy. We want people to come here who are able to speak English. That is sound common sense.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: My in-laws cannot speak English.

I understand that the member’s in-laws cannot speak English, because as an Australian, he struggles at times himself. So there are exceptions to everything.

New Zealand First wants people who come here to be crime-free—people who were law-abiding citizens where they came from and who are intending to be that here. We like the 5-year requirement before a person can get citizenship because we think it is a good period of time to be crime-free before—

💬 Hon Matt Robson: You don’t think, you just parrot.

The member should put his brain in gear from time to time and listen.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: Thinking requires analysis, not parroting.

My patience is wearing a bit thin. I am prepared to deal with the member, but I just note that I am—

💬 Hon Annette King: You’re getting tired.

Yes, and I am getting less tolerant. New Zealand First believes that a 5-year period for people to live here before they get citizenship is a reasonable time frame, and that within that time frame, they must be crime-free. If they want to get involved in crime within that time frame, then they get a one-way ticket out. [Interruption] I say to the member who keeps yapping over there that I am prepared to give him a one-way ticket out.

New Zealand First believes that there is an obligation on anybody and everybody who comes to this country and who wants to live here permanently to assimilate into the country. By that I do not mean that they have to give up their national dress and such things, but I do believe that they need to make the effort to become part of New Zealand society in the wider sense. I see the Minister of Immigration sitting there. I think he nodded in agreement. I have to say that he has learnt the lesson the hard way. If he had listened to us, he would have nodded in agreement much more quickly.

We are taking people into this country now who come from war-torn countries—countries savaged by war.

💬 Dianne Yates: Might even be from Britain.

Yes, and Britain might be one of them, but there is a good deal worse than Britain. People who are under the stress of living in war-torn countries might not make good New Zealand citizens, and we should possibly examine that criteria—where they come from.

💬 Hon Annette King: For whom does that bell toll? It tolls for thee.

It tolls for thee? I have frequently been accused by that Labour Government of being an immigrant and wanting to close the door after me. [Interruption] And those members are pretty close. When I came here I had to be in good health, and I have maintained that. I had to have a job, and I have had a job ever since I have been here. I had to make a commitment to this country, and although I am a soccer man, I have taken up rugby. I can see that the Labour members over there are very tired and in a very humorous mood, so I think I might conclude my speech and have a little bit more fun during the Committee stage.

Amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority agreed to.