Immigration Bill

Believe it or not, I have a serious question to put to the Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, and it is a real-life case. There is a child currently in Scotland—at least, I think the child is currently in Scotland; I am not sure whether it has been resolved yet—and that child wants to return to New Zealand. When I say: “return to New Zealand”, actually, the child was born in Scotland. But the child was born in Scotland to two New Zealand citizens. Regrettably, each of those citizens was themselves born offshore. Let me try and explain. The child’s four grandparents were all born and raised in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is this a riddle?

No, it is not a riddle; it is a real-life problem. What I am trying to work out is whether we have it fixed, and I simply cannot get it. All four of the child’s grandparents were born in New Zealand, and the child’s two parents were both raised in New Zealand. All four grandparents were born in New Zealand, and each pair of grandparents then travelled offshore for postgraduate study—one pair to Australia, and one to Canada. In Australia and Canada each of the child’s parents was born. [Interruption] Well, it may end up on Mr Woodhouse’s desk; I will send over the details. As a result of that, although the parents were born to New Zealand citizens, they assumed Australian and Canadian citizenship respectively, and their citizenship in New Zealand, which was subsequently granted, is of a different status to that which would be the case if they were born here. I appreciate that the member says this is not citizenship legislation but is immigration legislation, but it is now an immigration problem because now that the two parents of the child have grown up and finished their first degree, they are offshore too, doing post-graduate study themselves—in this case in Scotland—and this child has come along.

The New Zealand citizenship processes will not allow this child to be granted New Zealand citizenship. Attempts to give the child Canadian citizenship are possible—the child can be given Canadian citizenship because one of his parents was born in Canada, even though the family lived there for only 3 years—and the Australian Government has apparently said that Australian citizenship for this child is not appropriate. The child cannot travel, because he cannot be put on to a passport. This family is due to come back to New Zealand. It is not an urgent problem; these people are not due to come back for a time, although they wonder what will happen if they have to rush back to New Zealand in a hurry for some reason. It is just an interesting issue that I think the very first part of Part 11 might help address, but I do not know whether it addresses it.

I am sorry that I have given the officials a bit of a pickle, but I wonder whether they would be able to help, if we have a few minutes. If they are not able to help, then that is fair enough; the legislation can proceed anyway. But if the officials would be good enough to look at the first part of Part 11 and tell me whether I am right in my thinking that maybe a fix for circumstances of that sort is applicable with regard to the most favourable citizenship proposition—the idea that we would accord a person the citizenship most favourable to the person’s status. I wonder whether the clauses in the Immigration Bill, even though it is not dealing primarily with citizenship, would allow this child, who is currently in Scotland, to come to New Zealand, which is where his natural home will be. I could just keep talking if officials would like to take the time to confer with the Minister in the chair. They are conferring now; that is slightly helpful.

If the view of the officials is that I am on the wrong track, then that is fine. I am very happy to be corrected. But I just wonder whether the very first part of Part 11, which is miscellaneous provisions, has any relevance to the real-life problem that I am addressing. By the way, this child was born after 1 January 2006. This child is not a New Zealand citizen, because this child was born in Scotland to New Zealand parents who were themselves born overseas to New Zealanders. So that is me just trying to nut through a bit more time here. If the officials would like to shake their heads and indicate that I am on the wrong track, then I will gladly resume my seat. But if they would like to offer advice to their Minister, then that would be good too. If they would like me to go through the story again, then they could indicate that, and I will happily try to tell it without hesitation on the second time around. I am just not sure whether the officials want to rise to the occasion. I do not mean to put them on the spot. As I say, if it will not work—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Can’t do it off-line, I think.

It is off-line and it will not work. Nevertheless, it was worth a go. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 350 be agreed to.