McNair Craig: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
McNair Craig: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20108] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on Part 1 I want to raise the issue of the increase from 3 to 5 years in the standard period of residence. The reason I want to raise it is that the National Party the Progressive Party the Green Party and I believe the ACT party are opposed to it. Is the ACT party opposed to the increase from 3 to 5 years? It does not matter whether it is anyway. The National Party the Progressives and the Greens at least are opposed to the increase. 
Last year I had the pleasure of being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee trip to Australia. When we were in a meeting in Canberra with some Ministers and Government MPs one of the thorniest issues—one of the issues that has created tension in our relationship with Australia—was the 3-year requirement and also wider issues of immigration and the different path that New Zealand has chosen to take in the last 20 years compared with Australia. Yet we wonder why about 3 years ago the Australian Government restricted the reciprocal benefits agreement that we had had for so many years! We had an amazing relationship with our trans-Tasman brother—or sister if members want to call it that—for many years. It was probably one of the closest intercountry relationships the world has ever seen. I would not say we have destroyed that because New Zealand First was against doing that but New Zealand Governments of the last 20 years have taken us down a path of destroying the great relationship we had with Australia. That has formed a lot of tension in these areas and I wanted to bring that up with the Committee. 
Keeping with the issue of the increase from 3 to 5 years I was berated by the Progressive member Matt Robson for saying what Keith Locke had said. Keith Locke had said that if the citizenship process were prolonged it could make people more antagonistic. Matt Robson berated me and said I was marginalising people and stereotyping them but I was just quoting what another member had said. I then had my counter-argument to that which was my concern that people who get more antagonistic because of having to wait another couple of years are not the kinds of people we want. I think that is a fair reasonable common-sense sensible argument. I do not see how anybody could disagree with that argument. 
Another issue that I want to raise in the Committee is the comment made by Stephen Franks from the ACT party that this bill is unpatriotic. Well I want to allude to a couple of points in Part 1 that I believe make the bill quite the opposite—a patriotic bill. First there is the requirement for applicants to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand at a public citizenship ceremony. I believe that is very patriotic. I was watching television the other night and saw a citizenship ceremony that the Prime Minister had attended. I think it is a great thing when people say: “I am becoming a New Zealander. I am becoming a New Zealander first. I am going to put my country first and be proud of the country I represent.” I believe that the patriotic thing to do is to go to a public ceremony and say: “I am a New Zealander.” I think that is patriotic. I think that is great. When somebody says this bill is an unpatriotic bill I just allude to that fact and say it is very patriotic. 
Another argument I have against this bill being an unpatriotic bill is the fact that it provides for the Citizenship Office to have restricted access to immigration information for the purpose of conducting citizenship investigations assessing whether—