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:20092] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill addresses some measures that needed to be taken. It is being discussed here tonight simply because of the pressure New Zealand First has applied on immigration issues. New Zealand First has constantly year after year and month after month for the last 5½ years while this Labour Government has been in power been pressuring the Government and making mileage on these issues. I believe that the Government is reluctant to deal with these issues. 
The reason I know it is reluctant to deal with these issues is that I was on the select committee for the purposes of this bill and certain Labour members on that committee were saying that they were very uncomfortable with the bill. They were clearly uncomfortable with the bill. What we have here are two factions—two sides. The reason why this bill has not been advanced more quickly—the reason why it has been languishing on the Order Paper—is that Labour is split on it. Government members know that they are split on this bill. On one side are John Tamihere and 10 members who will back him to the hilt. [ 
Interruption 
] He is probably on the side that is more comfortable with this bill. Ten will back him to the hilt maybe 15 on a good day. 
Then we have the National Party over here which is absolutely too soft and wonders why it is going down in the polls. [ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking specifically to this bill. I am talking about what the people of New Zealand want and the poll tonight shows what they want with New Zealand First’s ratings going up. As Georgina Beyer said a few minutes ago we are only three points behind Don Brash. That is all good news. 
What I am trying to say to the House tonight is that the issues the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill addresses are serious. I will go directly to the guts of the bill and refer to the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins on 29 July 2004 in which he said: “One of the standard requirements for a grant is that the applicant must have been ordinarily resident in New Zealand for the 3 years before application. That is short by international standards and can include time spent here on temporary permits such as work or student permits.” This is insufficient for assessments of applicant suitability for citizenship. He goes on to say: “To rectify it the bill increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants must meet from 3 to 5 years. From 1 January 2005 applicants will need to have been in the country for approximately three-quarters of the 5 years before application including 8 months in each year.” 
What the Minister said was right. He was absolutely correct. But what I am saying is that it has taken 6 years for this Labour Government to heed what the New Zealand First Party has been saying. The Government knows that it is trying to shut down this issue before the election because it has reluctantly had this bill languishing on the Order Paper for the last year or so and now it is trying to ram it through under urgency. 
One of the submitters to the Government Administration Committee was very supportive of the longer residential requirement for citizenship—it is extended from 3 years to 5 years—because he felt there was a major issue with the integrity of our citizenship. He felt the process undermined the integrity with people coming in doing their lag then as soon as 3 years was up shooting off to Australia. He said that this new law will make people look more seriously at coming to New Zealand and staying in New Zealand because of the process being longer. 
I received some extraordinary answers to my questions from certain submitters who were against this bill. I asked one whether he was aware that a lot of European countries have requirements of 10 years and I cited Greece and Italy as examples. I said that the US Australia and the UK are also looking at increasing their requirements to 10 years. I recall the answer the submitter gave me was that it takes 10 years to get divorced in Italy. We all know that is not true and I thought that was an extraordinary answer. Basically the submitters did not have an answer to the questions I asked in that regard. 
Another interesting comment which I heard from Keith Locke the Green Party member in the select committee was that if residential requirements for citizenship were prolonged it would make people more antagonistic. My concern is that if people get more antagonistic because their wait for citizenship is 2 to 3 years longer then I do not think those are the kinds of people we want in our country. If people have to wait another 2 or 3 years to get citizenship and they start smashing the windows of the Immigration Service and running around and being disorderly in our streets because we will not give them citizenship in the 3 years that they believe is their right then those are the kinds of people we do not want in our country. Those are the kinds of people that we do not want. It is outrageous to have somebody in Parliament who says that if we extend the time to 5 years from 3 years people will become more antagonistic. Those are the kinds of people we simply do not want in our country. That is what New Zealand First says and is what New Zealand First has been saying for many many years. 
The Government has been soft on these issues; when it has been reluctant on them—and there are members on the Government side who are shaking their heads. The fact is New Zealand First since 1999 when this Government came into power has been addressing this issue along with a lot of other issues. The Government has not listened and in the 2002 election when New Zealand First brought up immigration as one of the three major issues that we campaigned on it called us racists. The member over there is nodding her head. She called us racists. Now the Government is implementing those issues with this bill. She is voting for this bill tonight—voting for the very issue that she called us racist for. Now those members are starting to realise that the people of New Zealand are serious about these issues and do not want their infrastructures in health roading etc. being pressurised by an increased amount of immigration and so on in respect of the issues I am talking about tonight. 
I want to commend the Government for implementing another couple of issues in the bill. One is to ensure that time spent in the country on temporary permits such as visitor permits will no longer count as a period of residence for citizenship purposes. 
Peter Brown 
: Good good. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: My colleague Peter Brown is saying that this is a good thing and it is. 
As my time is running out I guess I better fly through the issues. Another is to ensure that applicants with serious criminal convictions are prevented from receiving a grant and that applicants with less serious convictions cannot receive a grant for a specified period following conviction. Another interesting issue—one that Keith Locke mentioned in the select committee—was the requirement that applicants take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand in a public citizenship ceremony. The Greens were cautious about that issue. 
I look forward to speaking more on this bill in the Committee stage. New Zealand First will support it.