Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. I am very pleased to do so so soon after the bill was introduced to the House in June. Immediately I want to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their efforts in considering the bill over a very short period of time—in fact, the bill was referred to that committee on 18 June this year and reported back to the House on 24 August. The committee received 20 written submissions on the bill. The Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) is largely a technical bill that makes a relatively small number of amendments to the Passports Act 1992. The main change, of course, is in the key area of the adult passport validity period, which the bill increases from 5 years to 10 years. Not surprisingly, virtually all submitters supported this change.

The select committee’s report contains one amendment, which is to bring forward the date of the commencement of the bill from 31 December 2015 to 30 November 2015. I fully support this change. This will mean that the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to begin issuing adult passports with a 10-year validity period in time for the Christmas holiday season later this year, a move that will benefit many thousands of New Zealanders. Bringing forward the commencement date will also benefit a number of refugees, because the validity of the refugee travel document is being increased from 2 years to 5 years. That means that the validity period will, in most instances, be long enough to ensure that a refugee needs only one refugee travel document before they are eligible to apply for New Zealand citizenship and subsequently become eligible for a New Zealand passport. Currently, refugees may need to apply for up to three refugee travel documents before they can apply for New Zealand citizenship.

The changes in the validity periods of travel documents are the amendments in the bill that attracted the most public attention. The majority of the amendments that the bill contains are of a technical nature and are designed to modernise the Passports Act 1992. They do this by updating a number of sections of the Act to take into account the use of an electronic database to manage the issuance, recall, and/or cancellation of travel documents. I understand that this development was also commented on by one submitter to the committee. That submitter noted that I, as Minister of Internal Affairs, have had longstanding powers to recall and/or cancel passports under the Passports Act 1992 and that these clauses in this bill simply move the provisions of the Passports Act into the digital age.

There are several other amendments contained in the bill, all designed to increase transparency and clarify powers contained in the principal Act. These include the replacement of section 40 of the current Act, which provides for powers to make regulations to set fees. Section 40 is being updated to remove redundant provisions and to clarify the range of services that fees may be set for. The new section 40, which is introduced by clause 34 of the bill, clarifies that fees may be set on a differential basis, including depending on where an application is lodged—whether it is lodged in New Zealand or overseas—and the way it is lodged; for example, whether it is lodged electronically or in paper form. A different fee may also be set if the applicant is under the age of 16 years. This does not change the current practice, because different levels of fees apply already to passport applications that are processed in London and Sydney, where staff and building costs are substantially higher than in New Zealand. The committee has not recommended any other change of approach within the bill.

There is a further small technical change to the bill that I propose to make. In reviewing the bill, parliamentary counsel identified a change that was needed to the numbering of the schedules in the Act, because the bill introduces an additional schedule. I will therefore be moving a highly controversial Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to renumber the current schedule in the Passports Act to schedule 2. A new schedule 1 is introduced by the bill and sets out a savings provision in relation to any New Zealand travel document that is issued or renewed before the commencement date of the bill. That is really all I need to say at this stage with regard to this legislation. It has been well-considered and efficiently considered by the select committee, and it is with a great deal of pleasure that I now commend the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. First of all, I would like to say that we support the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to congratulate the Minister of Internal Affairs again on bringing this bill to the House. Over 1 year ago Labour announced that we indeed would extend the period for passports to 10 years. So it is great to be able to see one of our policies come to the House.

Although 5-year passports were very important, and they were brought in for a particular purpose, that purpose is now no longer needed, and that is due to biometric technology, as the Government Administration Committee found out last year.

Five-year passports have been very unpopular with Kiwis. A lot of the public feel that they have been ripped off, that the 5-year period is not long enough, and that some countries having an expectation that you have a certain amount of time left on your passport really in effect means that the passport is valid for only 4½ years. So we in the Government Administration Committee, as the Minister has mentioned, heard the submissions, and most of the submissions were in favour of extending the passport period to 10 years.

In fact, if I was to summarise the submissions, they basically said that we agree with 10 years; get on with it. Some of them literally actually said that: “Get on with it.” So I am pleased that the Government Administration Committee, as efficient as we are, did actually get on with it and brought forward the commencement date to 30 November. I think that was done, as much as anything, so that Kiwis who want to apply for passports in November or December to travel overseas during Christmas and the New Year, will be able to do so. So I think that is a little something that the Government Administration Committee was able to achieve collectively. Of course, as I said before, 5-year passports have been very unpopular, so it is good that we were able to do that.

The other issue that I want to talk about is the cost. There have been reports and information that Treasury really wanted to charge $400 for passports. That, indeed, would be very unpopular, as well. So I congratulate the Minister again on getting the cost at $180. But I just want to say this: it needs to be sustainable into the future, beyond 2018. I understand there is a commitment to keep the price at $180. It is important because not only are passports travel documents they are also identification documents. Some businesses, departments, and different organisations require identification such as passports for certain activities and certain processes. I think it is important that we make sure that there is access to the ability to have identification of oneself. So it is not just a travel document.

We want to make sure also that in supporting this bill the cost needs to be kept at a manageable level for ordinary Kiwis. The one million Kiwis in particular who live under the poverty line need to be thought about in this instance—$180 is a lot of money for some families. If one family is applying for passports for mum, dad, and two or three tamariki, then that cost is a huge amount in some people’s budget.

I also want to mention the employees at the Department of Internal Affairs, with regard to the extension of passports to 10 years. We expect that over time there will be fewer passport applications to process because people will do that every 10 years not every 5 years. We have just heard concerns about the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, which has just gone through its first reading. I want to raise the issue about Department of Internal Affairs’ staff who currently process passports. They ought to be redeployed within the department and not made redundant, I think. I think that ordinary Kiwis out there receiving the ability to have 10-year passports rather than 5-year passports would be, in general, very concerned that people would lose their jobs under this bill. I think that is an important issue.

I want to acknowledge also that there are some technical changes within the bill that the Minister has talked about. There are some, I am sure, that we will talk about further at the Committee stage. But for now we question whether or not it is really necessary for some of those technical issues, and we look forward to debating those further.

This bill is very straightforward. It is very much understood by the general public, and we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Of course I rise in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I think that for half past 9 at night on a Tuesday this is actually quite exciting, because there is nothing worse than having to renew a passport after 5 years and having to go through overly complicated bureaucracy to do so. So 10 years will, of course, be well received. Kiwis are well known for flying, even though, technically, the bird itself does not fly. But we fly. We love to travel, and it will be wonderful to have a 10-year validity period for our passports, and to be able to travel for extensive periods if desired without having to turn round and renew a passport and go through all of that documentation process again and again and again.

It was a pleasure to sit on the Government Administration Committee and hear from officials and learn from submitters. There were 20 submissions; 19 were in support. It is wonderful that people in support can be so vocal in respect of a bill, and the one had no concerns in respect of privacy issues, so I take that as a pseudo support. It is wonderful that people can submit and be vocal on such a positive bill. The advances, of course, in our passport, with biometrics, make the document secure, and it is a well-received passport around the world. To travel on a New Zealand passport is revered. We are well respected overseas, and it is certainly something that I experienced as a traveller on my OE several years ago. We will not mention how many years ago that was.

💬 Chris Bishop: Where did you go?

Well, I based myself in Britain, Mr Bishop, with my now husband, who was a professional cricketer for Wimbledon. We travelled extensively around Britain and around Europe, and the passport was very well received in the EU, especially in some of the more obscure countries, you could say. We are well known, and well known for our compassion as a country and as a civilised country.

💬 Chris Bishop: That member’s not well known.

No. No, I do not think so. Look, this is a very positive bill, and, as I said before, most people—well, I would think all people—would be in support of it. The officials did a fantastic job in bringing the information together and reporting to us. They were clear and concise, and that enabled the committee to be efficient and report back to the House in the timely manner that it did. This is a wonderful bill. I cannot wait to have a 10-year passport myself. Unfortunately, I did have to renew mine prior to this bill coming into force, so I will have to put up with a 5-year—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Oh no! Oh, my God!

I know, you are pretty upset about that, are you not? You are upset about that, I know. But one day I will have a 10-year passport in my hot little hand and I will be able to roam throughout the world for an extended period and take in the culture that the world has to offer.

Because it is such a positive bill, we are bringing the commencement date forward by a month because everybody is so excited. I think it is wonderful to finally get to this stage, and for half past 9 at night I think it is a fantastic way to end my time speaking tonight. So I commend this bill to the House.

This is one of those occasions when we have pleasure in supporting the Government and particular pleasure in following the oratory of the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Sarah Dowie, for whom there is nothing worse than a short-life, 5-year passport—someone who has been known to fly everywhere, including to obscure countries. It is heartening to know that this crowning achievement of the member’s parliamentary career has been delivered at this moment, and it is a pleasure to see a member so excited about coming to work to achieve the magnitude of change that is being delivered to the people of New Zealand. But there is just a little sobering memento that I might offer the member, as she genuflects upon her life’s calling, and it is this. This was in the Labour Party’s 2014 election manifesto, brought to you by none other than the Chris Bishop lookalike, the Hon Trevor Mallard. Thank you, Trevor, for making Sarah Dowie’s parliamentary career great. It is all downhill from here.

💬 Chris Bishop: Go, Trevor—well done!

Go, Trevor. Go, Trevor—well done! Even Chris Bishop is rising to his feet to congratulate the electorate member for Hutt South. I think that is tremendous, and it is heart-warming to see the House rising in unison. All around the House, as I look around at both the members who are here at 9 p.m., I see the genuine look of delight on the faces of members opposite as they know they have seized the moment—carpe diem, vita brevis. Life is short, rise to the challenge, get this 10-year passport across the line, implement Labour’s 2014 election manifesto, and drive it home—drive it home. I am delighted to see the member in a positive lather of excitement as she gets her hot little hand on the 10-year passport, which I am sure she will stretch to buy for purely emotive reasons, because why have a 5-year travel document when you can have a longer one.

The second thing that this momentous occasion teaches us is that the Government is good at nothing so much as copying good ideas from the Labour Party. In fact, you can pretty much reel off a long list of them—Working for Families. How about increasing the refugee intake? What a very important week it is, and I acknowledge the work of our Green colleagues there who have been working arm in arm with Labour over the last week to give National just a little bit of moral backbone. I think it was a National Prime Minister who once—and I will not discuss the subject—described somebody as being a whole lot of chills, cold shivers, looking for a backbone to walk up. How that phrase has come to roost—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: It was Bill Rowling.

I know. It now applies to John Key. It took a week of sustained pressure—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—from the New Zealand people to get a 10-year passport that our increased refugee quota can use once they get here. So I would implore the member opposite, the member for First World problems, to spare a little thought as she recounts to her grandchildren those wondrous days in Wimbledon. She reminds those folks, because her grandchildren will probably be married then into a Syrian refugee family, that the time has come to celebrate the actual principles that New Zealand was founded on: Jack and Jill are as good as their masters and everybody deserves a fair go. It is those ethics that mean that we are well-respected around the world, and it is this party, this side of the House, that has always stood up for them. Thank you.

It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak on this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). It is almost like being at an evangelists’ review or reunion here, such is the enthusiasm across both sides of the House for this bill and what it will do.

I was actually a bit slow to rise because I was hoping the member opposite, David Cunliffe, was going to carry on for a bit longer with his impassioned speaking on behalf of this bill. I must note, though, that he did make a point that my colleague who spoke before him, Sarah Dowie, had made, perhaps, the wrong judgment on just how important this bill is. But to help Mr Cunliffe—a man who, after all, has spent a rather large chunk of his life in this place—I will point out to him that even when you have served for the amount of time that he has in this House, you can still get a little bit of incorrect understanding of legislation and change.

Mr Cunliffe, when the refugees arrive in New Zealand they will not be handed 10-year passports, but what they will get, under this amendment bill, is refugee travel documents that will have a validity period moving from 2 years to 5 years because that aligns to the residency requirement in order for them to apply for and receive New Zealand citizenship. So I will just help Mr Cunliffe to understand the bill a little better by pointing that out.

The fundamental part of this amendment bill, the one that has captured, if we can use that term, the public’s imagination—it certainly has got broad support outside of this House I would wager, as well as inside—is the return to a 10-year validity period. It is a wonderful thing to be here and to be part of a united House, in this case, and a united Parliament, making a change that the public are very, very pleased to see.

Nowhere more did we see it than in the submissions that we received. In fact, the chair of the Government Administration Committee made an interesting observation. The Hon Ruth Dyson pointed out that Kiwis have this thing that when they broadly agree with a change or a bill going through a select committee, they do not make submissions. And when they do make submissions that are in favour, they do not actually want to appear to talk in favour of their submission.

Such was the case here. I think we received around 20 submissions, and no one, not a single submitter—they were all, basically, in favour—actually wanted to appear in front of the select committee to argue strongly in favour. So we can bear that in mind the next time Opposition members start talking to us about the number of submissions that are opposed to a Government measure—that, in their own words, the many, many in favour just do not bother submitting. So I will keep that one filed away.

It is very, very good indeed to be a part of making something that the public very much want and very much support. I will cover just a couple of other things that this bill will do, because I think they are as important—perhaps not as important in the minds of the general public as the return to 10-year validity, but they are important. As well as increasing the validity of refugee travel documents to align to the New Zealand residency requirement period, the bill reduces, actually, the validity period of certificates of identity from 4 years down to a maximum of 2 years. These are documents that are issued to non - New Zealand citizens who cannot obtain travel documents from their home countries.

There is some concern about some people who fall into this category because of the difficulty of establishing bona fides as to their identity and their validity. So it is a sensible thing to cap the validity period for travel documents in that category, and that is a good change the bill will make. But one thing it will do, particularly around that area of proof of identity and certainty of bona fides—we know that the New Zealand passport is one of the most desirable in the world. It is the eighth most desirable in the world, according to Arton Capital, which created a passport index—a passport power type ranking. We are ahead of Australia, and that will come as no surprise to anyone in this House. We are behind a few other countries, but we are well up with the very, very best.

Of course the flip side of that is that if you have got a passport that is so desirable, it makes it a very, very attractive target for those who would like to misuse it—to forge it or to misuse it inappropriately. One of the changes that this amendment bill will bring about is that it will allow an offence of false representation to be applied extraterritorially. It seems, on the face of it, an odd situation exists today that you commit a crime if you make a false representation as to identity within New Zealand in seeking to obtain a New Zealand passport, but if you make that same false representation outside of New Zealand, the power is not there to actually take a court proceeding against you, at least not under New Zealand jurisdiction. I think that is a very, very sensible change to bring about in this bill.

When we had the first reading debate, I focused my contribution a great deal on why we had come to the position that is, in fact, the current state—a 5-year validity. It was because of all of the security requirements, the heightened security concerns around the world post - September 11, 2001, and some changes that US legislation had, effectively, enforced in order for us to maintain our visa-free waiver status. So there were very, very strong reasons why we had to, and did, create the first change to move to a 5-year validity.

The select committee and the Government, in putting the legislation forward, looked very closely at ensuring that we could move back to a 10-year period and have confidence in the security and the technology behind our passports to make sure that we would not unduly compromise New Zealand or New Zealand’s standing by introducing great risks by doubling the validity period. We heard a lot from the officials on this. It gave us on the select committee great confidence. I think the New Zealand public has confidence, and they certainly want to return to a 10-year validity period. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take a call for the Greens on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party fully intends to support this bill.

I would like to start my speech by looking at the genesis of this bill and where this policy change came from. I did this in my first reading speech too, but I think it is worth mentioning. A gentleman called Kyle Lockwood set up a petition because he saw an upset mother with her son at Melbourne airport, who could not fly because the mother’s 5-year passport had less than 6 months’ validity on it. I think that is reasonable. I think it is great that this triggered a petition, which was then picked up by the Minister and became this bill.

Since then, the proposal has, of course, passed through the Government Administration Committee, ably chaired by Ruth Dyson. I would also like to thank the other members of the Government Administration Committee. I am not a permanent member. I was filling in for my colleague Mojo Mathers. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Sarah Dowie, Brett Hudson, Mark Mitchell, and Adrian Rurawhe.

I think I waxed lyrical in my first reading speech on this bill about the democratic process and how this bill was a shining example of that. I would like to wax lyrical again about how important the select committee process is. It is an opportunity for parliamentary colleagues to work cooperatively to improve legislation and also for the public to feed in. The example of working together on this bill and examining the 20 public submissions that were fed into the process, which were all universally in favour of extending passports for a 10-year period, will, I think, be one of my treasured memories of cross-party cooperation for many years to come.

I wish we had more opportunities to work cooperatively like this. We tried to reach across the aisle to work with the Government to introduce the necessary changes in the Health and Safety Reform Bill in the last sitting period. Unfortunately, the Government chose not to work with us and came out with a universally derided bill, which political scientist Bryce Edwards has included in his list of the most damaging incidents for this Government, in his article of 6 September. The point is that everyone profits when the Government brings the voices of the Greens to the table. You get things like insulation campaigns, Wai claims, and, now, our support for a very sensible bill.

The reason we supported this bill at the first reading remains now. Basically, this change will save New Zealanders the hassles, the stress, and the money spent applying for a new passport, and it will bring New Zealand into line with our neighbours and friends in other countries across the world. I did have some initial concerns, I think, about the security aspect. However, through the select committee process and the information received from the officials, who I have to say were great, I feel that those concerns have been addressed adequately.

However, in my first reading speech I did also raise other concerns, one of which was the underfunding of critical public services, and that remains relevant. An example, I guess, is that this morning there was that shocking exposé in the New Zealand Herald about the Masala chain of restaurants that had been exploiting migrant workers. Some of these cases were things like a chef who was paid just $40 for 2 months’ work, and a waiter who was working 66 hours a week for $2.64. So I applaud the heroic work of our labour inspectors, but we have to recognise that they are underfunded and overworked, as are many of our other core public services. Rather than wasting money trying to plug the gaps in the public sector by shifting our responsibilities and giving contracts to inefficient, incompetent, and discredited providers like Serco, should we not be investing our money into our core public services? As I mentioned last time, the fact that the department was saying that this minor change could lead to revenue problems was alarming. It is symptomatic of the strains that our hard-working public services have been put under—essential services like this one.

We support the modernisation of the Passports Act 1992, and we support the provisions for electronic processing. We recognise that this will save New Zealanders time and money when renewing travel documents, and this is something we support. I have to say it is a very efficient process right now, having renewed my passport just a month ago. It took a day to get my passport back to me.

💬 Chris Bishop: Happy days.

One day—it was amazing.

Finally, I would like to conclude by stating what a privilege this process has been. I would just like to stress that it could serve as an example of cross-party consensus. It is only a small change, this bill, but it is hopeful, and it is a helpful template for parties working together to address common challenges. We could be working on a lot more things together—crucial things, like the refugee quota and like climate change, for example. We would welcome the opportunity to work with all parties on that. This bill could show us how to do it—how to work cooperatively. We commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to join in the fanfare of entertainment this evening and to actually put New Zealand First’s voice out there to say we also show solidarity and a parliamentary collegiality in support of this fantastic outcome. Those are a whole bunch of big words, I will tell you right now. They are not as big as the biggest word I know, I have to say, which is, of course, a Māori word, but we do not even need to go there today.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Say it, say it, say it.

Well, why not? For the sake of the spirit of tonight and it being 10 minutes until 10, Taumatawhakatangihangakōauauōtamateapōkaiwhenuakitanatahu is actually the longest word in the world, at 72 letters long, but I just thought I would run that off, just with big words.

I have to say I very much enjoyed the speech tonight by Mr Cunliffe. It was very entertaining. It was sort of fun and sort of provocative at the same time. It reminded me of watching three frogs in a sock and, of course, that can be very entertaining. Conversely, on the other side, we had a speech that could actually turn a good bill into something horrid and morbid. Of course, Mr Hudson—I do not know—you have just got this ability to turn something good into something so bad. When you “monologued” to us this evening it just about made me put my head in my soup. But anyway, we diverge.

Anyway, getting on with the bill, there is not a lot that I can actually add to this. It is common sense. We have been saying for some time that we should actually get along and make a 10-year bill out of this. I do have to give two thumbs up to the Hon Peter Dunne for, of course, bringing the cost of those passports down to a better area. We would like to see them less, but we understand there is going to be ongoing costs, so that is a positive. I would like to congratulate the Government Administration Committee. I think it has done a fantastic job of bringing that time frame forward a little bit further.

Not just wanting to throw stones at the Government, I think if it had taken the same sort of approach of the retrospective legislation that was pushed through earlier this year—this is the work to get the $1,000 Kick-start programme for your KiwiSaver, which the Government retrospectively took away. I was kind of hoping for some retrospective legislation here to actually bring this legislation back, because there already are a large amount of Kiwis who have had to renew their 5-year passport just in the last couple of months. That would have been fantastic to be able to get them heard and get them on to the 10-year programme that we are now embarking on.

All in all, I think it is just an absolutely great thing. It is great to see that the House is in support of this. New Zealanders do enjoy getting out there around the world, and, as has already been said earlier, we are a flightless bird that enjoys the cultures and societies around the world. I think it has got something to do with the fact that we have only one degree of separation in this country. I mean, you only, literally, have to talk to your neighbour next door, who knows a friend who lives down in Invercargill and vice versa. I mean, you cannot close your windows and your curtains in your house without somebody waving out to you and you knowing who they are. I am not referring to you looking through my window, Mr Hudson, so do not get any ideas, mate. I can see you smirking away to yourself. You are making me feel a little bit uneasy.

Very, very simply, we do support this bill. We commend it going to the next stage of this process and doing anything we can to speed this up. There are only a few more minutes on the clock, and so hopefully we can hear from another speaker tonight. We commend this bill moving forward. Thank you.

The Passports Amendment Bill (No 2), speaking as someone who has done a lot of business travelling, is going to be a great thing. It will be great to be able to have a passport for 10 years. It is quite infuriating, having just 3 or 4 years ago replaced my passport, to then turn up in the US—I travelled through there quite frequently, and to the UK—and have a biometric photograph and fingerprints taken. Every time you go through the US you line up and get all that, and you wonder why on earth we have to have a passport renewed every 5 years. I understand the background as to why we went to a 5-year passport. However, the rest of the world did not go along with us, so it was time for a change.

The previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell, stated just before that it would be good to have done this a few months ago as the people who have just renewed their passports would not have had to go through the process. But, of course, you would have to keep going back and back, and there will always be people who renewed their passport the month before and would be quite annoyed about it. But that is just the nature of the beast.

The ability to get a 10-year passport when their renewal comes up, and also to do it at a much reduced cost over that 10-year period—$90-odd, I believe—is a fantastic Christmas present for New Zealanders. I think it is a great thing for everyone, and, really, it is good sense to get good law and good security and all the latest features that are going to be on these passports.

Really, security is so important around the world, and we have to have the best travel documentation to ensure that we meet our security obligations around the world. It is not just ourselves we are looking after; it is the rest of the world. Someone alluded to the fact that our passport is the eighth most desirable passport in the world—that is something I learnt this evening—and we are ahead of the Australians on that. You can understand why.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What are you doing? Flogging them off? Auctioning them?

No, we are not auctioning them, but we could auction off a few Opposition MPs, although we would not get much for them, I suspect. It is with great pleasure, on that note, seeing as we cannot get a bid for the Opposition MPs, that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I call Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.

I want to speak in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) on behalf of the Green Party. I was on the select committee when the petition was being considered by the Government Administration Committee. As well as the sheer number of people who have supported the petition, the quality of the evidence that was presented by the petitioner, Kyle Lockwood, was of a very high standard. With a depth of the research he had gone into researching all the countries around the world that have a longer passport period, the reasons why, how we were actually out of step with where the rest of the world was going with having longer passport periods, and how the concerns around security were no longer a rationale for keeping to a short passport time. So it was looking at that evidence and discussing backwards and forwards with the officials that persuaded the Government Administration Committee that we actually needed to recommend going back to 10-year passports. This is what the public wanted.

Passports are part of many people’s extensive documentation in New Zealand, both for identification but also because New Zealanders love travelling and a high proportion of New Zealanders do travel. They go to meet with family and friends around the world—in the Pacific Islands, in Australia, and further afield. We are a nation of migrants, and we often want to reach out to friends and family in other countries. So passports are extremely important to New Zealanders, and having to renew them, effectively, every 4½ years was incredibly stressful for many families. It is not just the cost; it is the inconvenience and the hassle, planning for a trip and then going to look for your passport and suddenly realising that you have got to actually reapply for your passport and all the hassle that is associated with collecting and collating the documentation required. So it is fantastic that we across the House have agreed that we are going to make things smoother and easier for New Zealanders in applying for passports. Extending the term will be a popular move. We know it will be. That is why we on the Government Administration Committee recommended that the House look towards adopting this bill.

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)