Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This bill makes a number of important policy amendments to the Passports Act 1992. The most significant change, and the one that has attracted the most public attention and been welcomed by all sides of this House, is, of course, the increase in the adult passport validity period from 5 years to 10 years. That longer validity period will benefit adult New Zealand travellers, who will need to renew their passports less often. Also, the fee for one 10-year passport will be substantially less than the fee for two 5-year passports. This change alone has made the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) a very popular bill.

I also believe that the increase in the validity period of the refugee travel document from 2 years to 5 years is a change that will benefit a small but important group of New Zealand residents, and I am pleased that this change was also welcomed by other members of the House during earlier stages of the passage of this bill.

This bill was introduced into the House on 15 June this year and was referred to the Government Administration Committee on 18 June. The committee reported back to the House on 24 August, and the bill has proceeded swiftly through its remaining stages. The commencement clause in the bill, which was amended by the committee, brings the changes to the validity periods into effect on 30 November 2015. This is only a short time away, and individuals will soon start to benefit from these changes.

The members of this House who have contributed to debates on this bill, including the members of the Government Administration Committee, have quite rightly noted that the passport validity period was reduced to 5 years in 2005 for security reasons. I therefore want to reiterate that considerations around security were foremost in my mind before making the decision to increase the passport validity period. Security is also one of the reasons why I do not believe that the passport should have a longer period than 10 years, which some submitters suggested to the Government Administration Committee. Ten years is the longest validity period recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization, and there is good reason why New Zealand should not stray from these internationally agreed guidelines.

Security is also why I established an independent review of New Zealand’s passport security settings last year. I wanted to be reassured that possible additional security risks from a longer validity period will be appropriately managed. The review showed that New Zealand’s passport security features have improved immensely since the current 5-year validity period was introduced in 2005. Our current passport is respected as a technically sophisticated and secure document by experts based outside New Zealand. However, security features will continue to be reviewed, and the document will continue to be enhanced at appropriate points during the future. Security risks, after all, continue to change, but these same risks are managed by many other countries, and I have been assured by the Department of Internal Affairs that they can be managed by New Zealand.

Some members have also raised a concern about changes in the bill that provide that passports do not need to be returned to the department in order to be cancelled when a replacement passport is applied for. It was suggested that this could lead to fraudulent activity through misuse of a seemingly unexpired passport. However, this matter is addressed by some of the apparently more mundane and technical amendments in the bill, which, as others have noted, brings the Passports Act into the digital age. These amendments reflect the fact that the management of travel documents is carried out electronically.

So once a passport is cancelled on the New Zealand travel document database, it cannot be used for travel from New Zealand as this information is shared with border authorities. This will help to provide more effective measures to prevent individuals from leaving the country when there are court orders or conditions that require them to remain in New Zealand—a point that does have some topicality. Additionally, these amendments help prevent the fraudulent use of travel documents. For example, if someone tries to use a cancelled passport to open a bank account or to support a financial transaction, checks made with the Department of Internal Affairs through its identity confirmation service will now show that the passport is no longer valid.

So, to conclude, I would like to acknowledge those individuals who took time to make submissions on the bill, and also the members of the Government Administration Committee for their efforts in considering the bill in a very short period of time and for the decisions that they reached. The passing of this bill will make the Passports Act more fit for purpose in an age when individuals wish to travel frequently and easily and when travel through borders needs to be managed quickly and effectively. These changes will do so in a way that does not threaten the international reputation of our existing and trusted passport but that extends the convenience of its life to New Zealanders who enjoy the privilege of travelling. So I commend the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure for me also to stand in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to start off, as well, by acknowledging the Government Administration Committee and the work that we did on this piece of legislation. As the Minister of Internal Affairs said, it is a very popular bill, and we were abundantly aware as a committee that it would be a good idea to get this bill through its different stages of the parliamentary process so that New Zealanders could apply for a new 10-year passport before the end of the year. I think it is a really great thing that we have come to this day in October in well enough time for that to happen. I want to acknowledge the Minister, as well, for getting this bill into the House.

I also acknowledge my own team, my Labour colleagues—in particular the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Trevor Mallard, who led a campaign to see the validity of passports change from 5 years to 10 years. Indeed, that was Labour Party policy at the last election, so we are very pleased to support that particular change. As I said, that is a very popular thing to do, but there are some technical things within the bill as well. They were widely canvassed within the process through from first reading, and in particular at the select committee stage, and the Minister has already spoken about the reasons why.

I would summarise all of those changes under the heading of “latest technology that allows that to happen”. So the reason for changing the validity to 5 years, of course, was the issues around security after 9/11. It was deemed that it would be best to have a 5-year period, and now that is brought back up to 10. In respect of the technology changes, I am no IT expert, but I certainly understand how these provisions can now be given effect to—for example, the electronic cancellation of travel documents without having the actual documents. That is now able to be done under this legislation. This bill also authorises the Minister to be able to put an electronic record against those travel documents. That is now available to the Minister through this piece of legislation.

The Minister talked about the cost of applying for a new passport. The cost will be set, as I understand it, at $180. Currently, it is $135 for 5 years. That is a significantly different pricing regime over the 10-year period. I am aware that the actual cost, though, of processing applications and issuing a new passport is actually $400—a $220 difference. I want to talk a little bit about that because we will get to the stage where it is no longer sustainable at that level, and then the Government at that time will need to make a decision around the actual cost. What I am really saying is that this is a short-term pricing regime unless there is money set aside in the future to sustain this level. So it is $180 for now, but, of course, we do not know what the future price of that is going to be.

I would advocate that having a passport is not only about travel but also about appropriate identification. Some organisations and some agencies require a passport as identification, so having a passport is also of community benefit. So I would advocate that, and I congratulate the Minister on convincing Cabinet to set the price at $180 rather than the actual cost of $400. That will, as I said, become an issue further on into the future.

As I said the overall effect of these three things—the security issues, the pricing, and the period of validity—are all the things that I think everyday, ordinary Kiwis will be happy to have as part of their application for a passport and for obtaining a passport. A lot of New Zealanders—and, indeed, I myself—consider that it is a real privilege to be carrying a New Zealand passport into other countries to identify themselves as being New Zealanders. I want to again acknowledge the Minister for his work on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a short call on this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to support the comments of Adrian Rurawhe, the previous speaker, in relation to the Minister of Internal Affairs and his officials bringing this bill to the House. It is a very popular bill, and I have to say that it is one of those bills that had unanimous support in terms of making sure that the select committee was as quick and as efficient as we could be in getting the bill back to the House. It is amazing how many Kiwis are standing by and waiting—I see that Nanaia Mahuta is one of them—in terms of delaying their passport renewal because they are waiting to be able to actually go for the 10-year passport. The good news is that they should be able to do that in November of this year, in time for the Christmas holidays and their Christmas travel.

I want to acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and the deputy chair, Sarah Dowie, who are not in the House today—

💬 Chris Bishop: Did a great job. Sarah did a great job.

She did. Sarah Dowie did an outstanding job in making sure that this bill went smoothly through the select committee process and back to the House for this third reading.

Kiwis love to travel—77 percent of us travel. We have got a long history of doing our OE, which of course has transitioned into a lot of Kiwis being mobile and travelling around the world on holiday, or choosing to work and taking their families and living overseas for a period. It was understandable that after 11 September 2001 there was a greater focus on security and, therefore, a lot of countries did make the change to a 5-year passport. But most of those countries are now starting to transition back to 10-year passports, primarily because the investment that most countries have made into passport security has been significant. We can all see just how efficient and how good our own systems are at our own border when we come back and we are able to access systems such as SmartGate.

The other thing that I did want to mention very quickly—which the Minister referred to, and that I agree is important—is the validity period of refugee travel documents. Although they are a small part of our community here in New Zealand, they are an important part, and it was actually really important to get that aligned from a 2-year period to the 5-year period.

So I am very happy to take a call and see this bill back in the House for its third reading. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of this bill, the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). It is good to be able to speak in support of legislation that is very much welcomed by Kiwis up and down the country. Before I give some acknowledgment to the Government Administration Committee, I would like to acknowledge two of my esteemed senior colleagues, the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Trevor Mallard, who strongly advocated for a return to the 10-year period for passports. I know that a lot of their work has helped to bring about the swift passage of this bill, which is now in its third reading today. So I do mihi to my mātua, my senior colleagues, for their input into this important process.

Can I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee and the Minister of Internal Affairs. From 15 June through to today’s date, that is a pretty well-oiled machine that the Government Administration Committee is—it probably does not rival the Māori Affairs Committee, but I must acknowledge—

💬 Chris Bishop: Nothing does!

We deal with a mountain of very, very complex legislation, but we are able to deal with it very, very thoughtfully and respectfully to all of the subject matter iwi groups that are concerned. But I digress. The Government Administration Committee did a fine job in considering this bill, and I understand it has made some very sensible amendments.

I am very excited, really, to be able to renew my passport, which I think is soon to be expired—if it has not already. I am keen on that 30 November date. I will be waiting until that date before I reapply—if I need to—to be able to go for an extended 10-year passport. I do not know whether anyone would want to be renewing it at the moment in anticipation of the fact that they can get a “double bang” for the duration of their passport.

So this is a very sensible piece of legislation. We do support it. I do know of one DJ, actually, who was a traveller. He went overseas on his passport, and I think he used it only once, and he actually had to pay for it urgently—so he had to pay double, or even more. So the 5-year duration is, as we call it in Māori, a bit of a hōhā—it was a bit annoying. The fact that it can be now returned to the 10-year duration I think is very sensible.

Of course, we note that the period for, I think, children under 16 is still 5 years—5-year renewals, obviously, for growing children. I was actually just at my son’s basketball tournament the other day. It was an under-13s tournament but, boy, there was quite a variation between under-13-year-olds, from some boys who were what we would call very, very big boys, to boys who were within that 2 to 3 year period, from about 10 to 13 years—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Member: They looked like you, Todd.

Yes. The hormones were yet to kick in for some of these little lads, so they were kind of outmatched. Even though it is like a 2 or 3 year age gap, the growth of these young lads was quite a sight to behold on certain teams. So it is sensible that we do retain a 5-year renewal period for children under 16.

Of course, we know that the 5-year duration was not really 5 years because—and this happened to me once—if your travel was taking place within 3 months of the expiry of your passport, you actually had to apply for a new passport. So therefore it was really only maybe 4 years and 9 months—the period that it was actually valid for. So, again, stretching out the validity period to 10 years is a sensible move, and I am sure there will be a lot of folks queuing up as we are entering the busy summer season. A lot of Kiwis, obviously, love to travel, especially due to our isolation here in the South Pacific. We do like to get out and about and venture abroad. So I am sure that there will be a lot of processing of these new passports with the new, longer validity period.

I also want to add that the security measures that have been installed—we know that in the aftermath of 9/11 that was a major reason why the validity period was halved to 5 years. But I think that in the 14 years since then and with the introduction of added technology to the passport documents and the central database, which is a lot more geared up to deal with faster flows of information around travellers, that has satisfied the Minister and the committee and this Parliament that a return to the 10-year validity period is a sensible move.

Of course, we know that as travellers everyone requires their passport to cross over our borders. Just to complement that, as I look after the customs area, I was intrigued to learn that the detector dog force at the Queenstown Airport has been doubled. It has been doubled from one dog, Zeta, to two dogs. It has been doubled to two. Those travellers who are coming in as tourists or are returning travellers to the mighty Central Otago area, which is part of the beautiful Queenstown Lakes District, will be able to not only go through what may be SmartGate technology, if they have been to Australia, but also they will be greeted by at least a double beagle detector dog force, which will be able to sniff out any nasties that may impact on our wonderful Central Otago horticulture, which is very important. It is very important for our trade and prosperity.

So the border control, border flow, travel documents—it all flows into this. And big boys, small boys, high posts, low posts—it is good to know that Kiwis out there will be able to have the reassurance and the confidence that for an investment of $180, they will be able to get their 10-year passport, and have that security of knowing that they can have a good 10 years of travel ahead of them, for them to enjoy. They will be able to venture across the globe, and back to our wonderful Aotearoa. All that remains for me to do now is to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Peace in our time—peace in our time. It does feel like peace has broken out in this place today. Pretty soon we will be sitting round a campfire, singing “Kumbaya”. But I would note that New Zealand First members have not actually spoken on this bill yet, and those words could prove as short-lived as they were when Neville Chamberlain first raised them decades ago. But it is a pleasure to stand in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). The principal change here, to restore a 10-year validity period for our passports, is something that Kiwis are very welcoming of. I too would like to reiterate our appreciation to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the members of the Government Administration Committee, which I am fortunate to sit on.

The committee did one thing, I think, that it is fair to say all of New Zealand would endorse strongly. So efficient and effective were we in our consideration of this bill, the greatest amendment we made was to bring forward the introduction date by a full month so people, like Nanaia Mahuta, who are waiting to renew their passports can get a 10-year passport 1 month earlier than was originally proposed.

It is fair to point out that the New Zealand passport is not only treasured by New Zealanders but is actually the eighth-most desirable passport in the world, according to the Arton Capital group, which created a passport power rank index. We have the eighth-most desirable passport in the world, ahead of Australia, not that that would surprise many people. But with that, it is fair to say that not only does it make it a very trusted passport around the world—and that is evidenced by the fact that around 170 countries permit us to enter their borders without a visa—but it actually makes it a bit of a target for counterfeiters. After 9/11, with the terrorism threat in particular being what it was, we had to take steps to ensure that it would remain a well-trusted and secure passport. One of the risks we faced was actually losing our visa waiver status with the US. I think Parliament at the time made the consideration that that would have been a greater inconvenience to travellers than shifting to a 5-year validity period. But it is a wonderful thing to be able to stand here now, and hopefully within a few short minutes we will be restoring the 10-year validity to Kiwi passports.

I will make just a couple of points before I finish up, to help speed this through. I am delighted to also see that we are making a change to increase the validity of refugee travel documents from 2 years to 5 years, because that aligns with the residency period for them to then seek permanent residency or citizenship. So that is good to see. It is also good to see that we are introducing the offence of false representation being applied extraterritorially. We had this odd situation that it was not an offence to make a false representation outside New Zealand.

So, all in all, the bill is making some very sensible changes, and the primary one, restoring 10-year validity, is one that will be welcomed across New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to rise to take a call for the Greens on this, the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). We are of course supporting this bill, like all the other parties in the House, basically because it is a sensible bill to extend the life and validity of passports from 5 years to 10 years. Having that reintroduced is a very popular move, and something that lots of people in the community have actually been lobbying for, for some time now. I also note that with this bill we modernise the Passports Act of 1992 and we bring it into line with many of our neighbouring countries and our friends overseas.

Other speakers have talked about the fact that Kiwis love to travel. There is no doubt about that. I guess if we are extending the validity of our passports back to 10 years, it gives us a longer period of time in which to collect those wonderful visa stamps that you can collect along the way. Five years for me was not enough, really, to get enough in there to make it feel like it was worthwhile.

I think we should reflect on the fact that Kiwis who do travel and are protected by those passports are protected by having New Zealand citizenship as well. That gives me pause to reflect, essentially, on those New Zealanders, those citizens of New Zealand, who have New Zealand passports who are currently being detained in Australia illegally. Their human rights are basically being breached because they are being detained in places like Christmas Island, and essentially are about to be deported, but are being detained without legal rights because they are going to be deported because of that country’s regulations around deportation. I think in New Zealand we would have learnt from the mistakes, and our Government really—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to come back to the bill.

OK—certainly. There were passports in there a little bit.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, just not enough. Carry on.

Not enough passports—OK then. So back to this bill. We are satisfied that the security issues—[Interruption] Rino Tirikatene got away with it. Anyway, back to the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I take your point.

We are satisfied, and I am pretty sure the rest of the Government Administration Committee was satisfied, that the security issues that were raised as a potential flag were addressed. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Internal Affairs, in his opening speech for this reading, saying that security will be reviewed from time to time. That is very reassuring. We were also pleased to see that the costs of the passports have been kept down as much as we possibly could. That was a concern that was raised by the few people who did submit on the bill. But we are extending the time frame—the validity of the passport—from 5 years to 10 years, so it is obvious that there will be an increased cost for that. We in the Greens are also pleased to see that within this bill it standardises the refugee papers, which will be extended from 2 years to 5 years, which is around the same amount of time that refugees have for seeking residency, and so it reduces that anomaly as well.

I want to also congratulate the Government Administration Committee. I sat in on that committee because I am the immigration spokesperson for the Greens. Our usual person is Mojo Mathers. I want to thank the permanent committee members for the detail and care that they took in scrutinising this bill and considering it. We will, of course, be supporting it. We commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call. I think I will be struggling to do as fantastic a job as Rino Tirikatene did before. I thought that was a fantastic example of how to filibuster and fill up 10 minutes. Labour members were clearly getting the “speak for 10 minutes” call—fantastic. I would also like to recognise Mr Brett Hudson for his contribution as well. I think that as a National Party member, he is certainly a well-balanced member. Of course, having a chip on both shoulders does help.

We will, of course, be supporting this—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mentioning the bill would be a good start.

Absolutely—I will get there right now. I had to get that out of the way nice and quickly. We will be supporting this bill today in the House. Just for the reference of Mr Hudson, on Tuesday night, for example, I was sitting in the House, and out of the four bills that were read out that day, New Zealand First actually supported three of them. That is a 75 percent support rate. Let us just see how we get on today.

Look, there is not a lot that has already been said that I can re-say, but New Zealand First does support the bill because it does make sense. Back in 2001, of course, we had the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in the USA. That was the catalyst for the Labour Government to bring in these reduced passports. I think it was a quick reaction. I think it was a reaction that probably, in hindsight, was unnecessary, but it was an action that was taken none the less. New Zealand First did not support the reduction from 10 years to 5 years for passports back in those days and has on a number of occasions spoken about bringing back those 10-year passports.

We are somewhat disappointed that it has taken 7 years for this Government to actually bring this bill to the House. Now that it has been brought to the House it has actually been moving along quite quickly and certainly in a positive fashion. At the end of today’s deliberation—the final, third reading of this bill—we are going to see this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) enacted and making some positive changes to the Passports Act 1992. The Act, of course, is—first and foremost; first cab off the ranks—going to bring a lot of happiness and joy to people back home, particularly those who are getting passports and those travellers, those New Zealanders, who get around a bit, because they will have a 10-year passport application available from 30 November.

Of course, this bill would not have got there without the input from the Government Administration Committee. I just want to commend committee members’ input on this bill. I think they have worked diligently. There were about 20 submitters. Nobody came in to give an oral submission, but they certainly were in favour of these passports being expanded out to 10 years. Of course, Peter Dunne has, I think, done a good job of working with Cabinet and the National Government to ensure that the pricing of this passport did not blow out to the $404 that was initially expected. He has actually brought that into a more palatable fee of $180-odd.

New Zealand First thinks that that price could come down. We think that $180, albeit over a 10-year period, is about a $90 deduction on what you would be paying over the $135 you would be paying twice for the same period with 5-year passports. It is actually only a 9½ year passport. If you understand the ideology as New Zealand First does and think that every dollar is a prisoner, then we can make some small but significant changes—in the size of the passport, for example, and how many pages are within it—that might actually help reduce some of those costs. We are talking about potentially, from 2021, getting an extra $200 million - odd from Treasury to actually enable that.

I skimmed over it before, but I just want to also bring the attention back to 2001, when the Labour Government brought in 5-year passports. It was a little bit quick. The vast majority of countries around the world stuck with their 10-year passports—Australia being one of them, and Canada. The United States of America even kept its 10-year passports. Many of the OECD countries realised that their passports were actually OK at 10 years. So it was a bit of a shame that we reacted so quickly, in hindsight, but it is good to see that we are making some headway now.

As far as the security of the new passports goes, I think it is a much better way of operation that they can be cancelled via the computer—you do not need to send them in to cancel them, cut them in half, or do whatever they do. That is certainly going to make things a lot easier for the Department of Internal Affairs with people coming or going. It is a reminder to those people who are planning on travelling to make sure that all their fines are paid up and there are no warrants for arrests or anything like that, because, of course, it is all done over the computer, and you might find yourself inadvertently getting to the departure lounge and being turned away at the gates because you might have a fine that has not been paid.

I will not go on any further. We do support this bill. New Zealand First strongly supports this bill going through the House. We look forward to hearing from some of the other speakers this afternoon. Thank you.

Fakaalofa atu ki a mutolu oti. I just want to acknowledge that it is nearly the end of Niue Language Week. How that relates to the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) is that Niue is one of the nations of the Realm of New Zealand. It is one of the three nations of the Realm of New Zealand that actually use a New Zealand passport as well. So I just want to acknowledge that it is Niue Language Week.

Passports have become very important because they allow us to travel. I just want to acknowledge that just recently I, with the New Zealand Parliamentary Rugby Team and my colleague and friend over there Kris Faafoi and nine other members of Parliament, went over there to represent the New Zealand Parliament.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: What happened to the cup?

Yes, well, if it were like it was for the netball girls where we had two games and we won, we actually would have come back with a cup. Unfortunately, we had a situation where the rules were set against us—the rules were set against us. I am sure that my colleague, friend, and playing colleague Kris Faafoi would agree that we put our bodies on the line. We did everything that we could to make people proud of us, and at every border that we went through—Los Angeles—it was an honour to pull out our New Zealand passports and then be able to enter into London and over there.

Just in regards to this bill in its third reading, I am proud to take a short call. I acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee and of the Minister, in this intent. I just want to make some comments about the previous speaker and the previous Government in 2001. There was some sense that it had overreacted in reducing the validity period of the passports from 10 years to 5 years. I think that that actually was the right thing to do. Obviously, evidence and experience has shown that other countries—in fact, Canada was one of those countries that did reduce its validity period from 10 years to 5 years as well. Canada has now increased it along with the Netherlands, so, I think, actually, that the New Zealand Government has shown that as now it is felt that there are issues around security and integrity around border control with these passports, it is time to increase that validity period from 5 years to 10 years.

I just have a couple of comments to make to add to the debate in this third and final reading. I think that what is also important is that the bill also reduces the maximum validity period of certificates of identity. In other words, these are non - New Zealand citizens who may be within New Zealand borders and therefore need a certificate to be able to allow for them to travel outside New Zealand. So we grant them a certificate—the period at this time is 4 years. What the select committee has come up with—international convention is 1 year; we have now secured that at 2 years. We think that that is important and it is in line with international conventions.

The other thing that I think has also been important is that we have seen since 2012 that the online renewal of passports has increased. In fact, 40 percent of adults are now renewing online, so that upgrade to technology is important, as many have talked about. Being able to be chipped in your passports and going through SmartGates has also made the ability for people to transfer into New Zealand and other countries much more easy as well.

I have just a couple of last comments that I want to make. The other thing I think—just for those in the public—is that we have talked about a 10-year validity period. This is only for adults, so that is for people aged 16 years and up, but children will still have to have a 5-year validity period. I think those are some things that are important.

Many have talked about our passport. It is a passport that is recognised overseas as being world class. We know that 170 countries acknowledge our passport and, therefore, do not require us to have visas, and that shows that our passports have both the credibility and integrity that is important internationally as well.

This is a bill that is a very simple bill, really. It makes some changes. It upgrades into the latest technology as well, and I think that is important. But, at the same time, it makes sure that passports are affordable and accessible. I commend this bill to the House.

I call David Clendon—a 5-minute call.

I am pleased to take a brief call just to reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. As we all know, New Zealanders tend to be great travellers. We are descended—be they Māori or European—from people who made some of the longest voyages ever in human history, and I think that that gene, that tendency, has somehow stayed with us. We do like to see the world, and this change to the passport regulations will make a small contribution to making that more affordable and more convenient.

Having said that, as the Green Party spokesperson on tourism and a great advocate for the domestic tourism industry, it would be remiss of me not to remind people of the importance of not leaving home until you have seen the country. Perhaps as a resident of the Bay of Islands I am more motivated than others to stay home, as I have less need to escape than those who are less fortunate and live in other parts of the country. But certainly we are travellers, and this bill is a useful step towards facilitating that.

The key change in the bill, of course, is to extend the term of a passport from 5 years to 10 years for a person over the age of 16. Younger people will still need to renew their passports every 5 years, which is appropriate given the rapid changes in appearance and so on of people of that age. The point has been made that the 5-year passport was, in fact, only a 4½ year passport given that many countries require at least a 6-month buffer before they will issue a visa to enter that country, which is not unreasonable, but cost $140-odd every 5 years or 4½ years, assuming you are a New Zealander living in New Zealand. But, for example, if you are a person who lives in the UK and you needed to quickly renew your passport, the cost actually got quite serious. Many hundreds of dollars could be involved in a straightforward renewal if somebody was under some time pressure to visit a relative, or whatever it might be, so it is appropriate that we should extend that time out.

I am reliably informed by my colleague Mojo Mathers, who sits on the Government Administration Committee, that this change was in large part motivated or triggered by a petition from one Kyle Lockwood and 15,000 New Zealanders who saw fit to sign that petition to call for a change to what they saw as an unreasonably short and, indeed, an unfair requirement to renew a passport every 5 years—so good on them. By all accounts, the background for the petition was well researched, it was evidence-based, and the Government Administration Committee responded appropriately and did make a very good decision to bring this bill to the House for the support that it be passed.

We were significantly out of step with a 5-year term. Some of our major partners in terms of tourism—Australia, the US, the UK, and, indeed, China—have 10-year terms on their passports. New Zealand is one of a number of countries on the international intergovernmental group that looks at developing best practice for passports. Again, we are on that group alongside Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US, and of that best-practice group we are, again, the only country that persisted with a 5-year passport. It made us something of an outlier, and, certainly, it would be very difficult to sustain an argument that a 5-year term would, in fact, be best practice in this modern age given the changes in technology and the availability of quick withdrawals.

One would hope that amongst the changes that are being made as a response to this bill would be the assurance that the rather unfortunate situation that emerged not very long ago, when a gentleman went on a South American holiday who ought not have been able to do that—one hopes that some of those loopholes will be plugged in terms of ensuring that Government departments talk to each other a little more before passports are issued. I do believe those changes are in train, and I hope they proceed promptly. So, with those few words, I will simply reiterate that the Greens do support this bill. We look forward to it being swiftly implemented. Thank you.

I call Meka Whaitiri—a 5-minute call.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mema o te Whare nei. Tēnā tātou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to make a small contribution to this third reading of this important piece of legislation—and I think everyone is here to express this—which makes complete sense. So I join with all members in endorsing it, but I also want to acknowledge, following on from the grand contributions from colleagues on this side of the House—Adrian Rurawhe and another colleague here, Rino Tirikatene—that Labour definitely stands in support of, like I said, a piece of legislation that makes sense.

I just want to make a couple of comments on the main provisions of the bill to assure members that I have actually read it. In terms of the comments around the extension of the life of the passports, I think everyone acknowledges that extending it from 5 years to 10 years makes complete sense. As an electorate MP, many of the inquiries that come through my office that pertain to passport issues are generally from my constituents who, often, are living in Australia, their passports have lapsed, and there has been a tragic event back home. I have often got a call to say: “We need a passport and can we get it done urgently?”. So I see huge benefits for those particular constituents who have recently travelled to Australia to benefit from the extension to 10 years. Having made that point, I also just want to acknowledge the many of my constituents from two whānau who are currently detained on Christmas Island. I look forward to the Prime Minister going in to bat to do something for our people over there.

I will come back to the bill. Like I said, over 16s and under 16s—so the under 16s, clearly, will remain on 5 years. As a mother of two teenage boys, one who is 18 and one who is 17, I am thankful that they make that cut, especially as the 18-year-old is in Scotland. So on a personal level it makes sense. When we look at the warnings on New Zealand travel documents, the electronic record, again, provides the ability, I guess, for the Department of Internal Affairs to provide warnings electronically through the bill and the main provisions that apply there. I notice the electronic cancellation, again, using technology to its best advantage to protect not only our borders but all of our Kiwi citizens, wherever they are. That needs to be acknowledged.

I also want to make a comment on the amendment regarding the offence of false representation. As I read it, I guess it is an offence. The terms of the offence are up to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $15,000, and the extension means it is not only an offence through a written or oral statement but, as the reclassification allows, through any statement. We all have memories of filling out passport application forms and the identification. If only we could make those little stickers a little bit bigger. Perhaps that may help people with failing eyesight.

I want to mention the cost and say the reduction down to $180 is absolutely welcome for many people. We are renowned travellers, and we want to make travelling not only within New Zealand but outside it accessible to many of our people. So that is going to go a long way. There was mention by a previous speaker in the House about SmartGate. On a recent trip to Taiwan, when coming back into New Zealand the lane that did not have the smart gate actually moved a lot faster than the lanes that had the smart gates.

💬 Sue Moroney: It was a slow gate.

It was very slow. In fact, actually, it was not working. So although we absolutely support technology, actually, some of the basic things that are supposed to make our lives more efficient sometimes fall over. So with those few remarks, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. In speaking to this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in this third reading debate I want to congratulate the Government and the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, for bringing in an incredibly sensible piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming, and New Zealanders are going to benefit significantly from reduced costs and reduced inconvenience in their passport applications and using New Zealand passports overseas.

I am probably the only member in this House, actually, who has ever issued a New Zealand passport. On the occasions when I did produce emergency travel documents for New Zealanders who were stranded overseas in the Middle East, it was often to do with the validity period. Sometimes people lose their passports, but often the 5-year validity period slips by very quickly and people find themselves stranded in an alien environment without a current passport. So this is a welcome measure. It is very sensible.

We have had a lot of quality contributions from members of the House. I particularly enjoyed David Clendon’s contribution on this, where he sounded somewhat like Murray, the deputy cultural attaché for New Zealand in Flight of the Conchords, in that he was promoting that we should visit New Zealand and see New Zealand before we go overseas. It sounds like a tourism slogan from the 1970s. But, in any case, this is a very sensible measure from a very sensible Government, and it does take a National Government to get this sort of thing sorted out. It is a wonderful measure. I commend it to the House.

I thank the “deputy cultural attaché” who has just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell. I would like to do something somewhat unusual, not—[Interruption] Do not get your hopes up too far. Not to indicate the Opposition’s support for this Government bill—because we have been doing that on a number of measures lately, based on the idea that when it is good we will support it, and when it is not we will call it. On this one, we think it is good, and we call it.

What I do want to do is something that I have not done for a while—and the honourable Minister Peter Dunne will echo this—I want to compliment him personally on the role that he has played in this. Not only is it a sensible outcome, Minister, but I want to personally congratulate you on the role that you have played in keeping the cost of the 10-year passport under control. For those who are not aware, the Minister Peter Dunne actually overrode—or, shall we say, leaned against—Treasury and audit advice that would have set it at a much higher level. I think New Zealanders have Peter Dunne to thank for that. Beyond that, this is a shared enterprise. It was actually Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard who brought the idea to me, when I was leader of the Labour Party, that we would put in our manifesto a commitment to the 10-year passport, and we did. So this is a bipartisan commitment to something that is citizen-friendly, taxpayer-friendly, and a heck of a lot easier to use.

Why, then, was the passport changed from 10 to 5 years? The answer is because in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11 it was decided that, based on the technology at the time, it was more secure for New Zealanders both travelling and at home that a 5-year passport be introduced, because it was easier to control and its renewability meant that that could be future-proofed. That is why it was done, even though it was always going to be a little more costly for the citizen.

It was a reasonable justification at the time, but as members opposite have said—and we concur—the technology has moved on. Those concerns about fraud—and I concur with the member Mr Hudson, that this is an issue—New Zealand passports are highly sought after on the black market because New Zealand is a country highly regarded for its integrity and the integrity of its systems. Therefore, it was right to protect the 5-year passport until the technology had advanced to the point where collectively we could be confident that a 10-year period was safe. It is common ground across the House that that time has now come. The time has come to reverse the change from 10 years to 5 years, and to put it back from 5 years to 10 years. I think New Zealanders will welcome that. It makes travelling life a lot easier and simpler, and, in the end—again, I want to commend Peter Dunne for this—less costly, less costly.

If I can, can I note that the Department of Internal Affairs will be making plans to redeploy staff in the period after 2020 as demand drops, because it stands to reason that if the passports are not being issued so often, not so many will be issued. Therefore, fewer people will be involved in issuing them, even though they are a higher-grade document. We accept that there will be some managerial changes at the Department of Internal Affairs to accommodate that change.

The Government Administration Committee has not made a lot of changes to this bill. There are a number of very minor technical amendments. I actually mean it this time. There is a phrase often in the jargon, when officials come and tell the Minister that there are a few minor, technical amendments to the bill, and that usually means they have completely rewritten it. But in this case, no, it actually means what it says. The amendments are minor, and they are technical.

I think that in the context of the debates of the last weeks, and given that this is an international matter, it would not be outside the scope of this third reading speech to say that we on the Labour benches would welcome it if the Government would be equally transparent about other international matters that it is currently progressing as it is with this international matter. If we had the same level of transparency on the costs and benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no way.

—that we have on the costing of a 10-year passport, the entire public—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are stretching the limits here. Just stay on the bill.

The very analysis that the Hon Peter Dunne, as Minister, had to enter into, which is documented in the regulatory impact statement and official advice, where he quantified the upsides and downsides of all of the options and where he modelled out both the static and the dynamic effects, and then made a judgment that was not necessarily in line with the recommendation but was the right call and done on a transparent and objective basis—would that the same process could be applied to other matters that I will not mention. Would that the same process of quantifying both the upsides and the downsides of what can be quantified, and exposing the difference between that which is science and that which is judgment in a transparent way, and, following the Minister’s practice here, if the effects today, the static effects and the effects over time, the dynamic effects—in this case, the impact on the Department of Internal Affairs staff levels and processing systems—and if the same methodology could be brought to bear on other international matters, well, what a pleasant change that would be. What a great public debate that would engender.

But on some important international matters, of course, that opportunity is not being afforded to the public—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back—we are not talking about other agreements. We are coming into this one.

Far be it from me to now mention other agreements. But we do want transparency. We do want good judgment. We do want to expose the difference between static and dynamic, between objective and judgmental calls. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

Let me summarise and conclude: Labour supports this bill. Labour thinks that 10-year passports are a good idea. They were in our manifesto last year, and we are very happy to credit the current Minister, the Hon Peter Dunne, with a job well done in not only getting this through the Government but also getting it through at a cost that is reasonable to the taxpayer. We commend the bill. We are happy to see it on its way, and it is one of many things that we would be doing, too, to ensure that New Zealanders get the services of Her Majesty’s Government at a cost they can afford, with an intent that supports the public and the citizen interests. Thank you.

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. I would just like to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, for your sense of work and efforts on this piece of legislation. I can assure you from the feedback that I have had—and it has been considerable from my electorate—that this piece of legislation is going down incredibly well. It has been highly welcomed in a number of quarters in my electorate.

I would also like to acknowledge the Government Administration Committee—in particular, the chairperson, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and the deputy chairperson, Sarah Dowie, for their joint dynamic leadership and comprehensive scrutiny of this bill. It is a tough committee sometimes, given that the Government does not have a majority on the legislation. But through the cooperation and intense relationship-building that has taken place between all members of the committee, it has managed to get this piece of important legislation through incredibly quickly.

We are a transparent and collaborative Government, and that is why we welcome the extension of the validity period of New Zealand passports from 5 to 10 years, as we know, for citizens aged 16 years and over. The reasons behind those people under the age of 16 not being included in the extension period have been well canvassed throughout the debate, so I will not touch on them again.

As has already been pointed out, we are considerable travellers, with around 77 percent of New Zealanders owning a passport. In Queenstown, in my electorate of Clutha-Southland, we have seen an incredible increase in the number of flights between the east coast of Australia and New Zealand, contributing both to New Zealand’s tourism number increases and also to the level of New Zealanders travelling back to Australia. In the ski season there are about 56 or 58 direct flights a week from the east coast of Australia to Queenstown. That is bringing thousands of Australians over to New Zealand, but it is also facilitating thousands more Kiwis from the southern part of the South Island travelling overseas, particularly to Australia. So this legislation, whether it be for business or for personal and family leisure travellers, increases their ability to do that by reducing the cost quite considerably. To that end, I am proud to support this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.