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:20125] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that good order is the foundation of all things. I ask for good order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask for a point of clarification: which things? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am quoting Edmund Burke. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Who is this Edmund Burke and why should members in this Chamber be extolled to take on board that nondescript person’s theories of life? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to be seated. That is not a point of order. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The member who just preceded me said that this is an undemocratic bill. He said that this is undemocratic legislation. 
Hon Member 
: Who said that? Edmund Burke? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: No Matt Robson said that. I remind Matt Robson— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s just a berk! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I know what the member is going to say. I would like members to look at Speakers’ rulings 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. I was going to say that they are to be witty but I have given up on that. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Those interjections were not even relevant to what I was speaking about. 
Matt Robson said that this is an undemocratic bill. I remind the Committee and Mr Robson specifically that the European Convention on Human Rights recognises national security as a ground for restricting the right to freedom of movement. A lot of countries that are encompassed by the European Convention on Human Rights are left-leaning countries that Mr Robson would fit into quite easily. 
I want to stay on this subject of national security. New section 4A(1) inserted by clause 23 specifically provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document on grounds of national security. When I saw that I wanted to look at other jurisdictions to see what they thought and what their rules were on the issue. I looked at Australia. Australia has a provision for the refusal and cancellation of passports when the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs is satisfied that a person may prejudice the security of Australia. The UK is covered under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the US the discretionary power of the Secretary of State to issue passports has been construed generally to authorise— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Tell us about Angola. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I do not know what the member is trying to allude to in interjecting about Angola but maybe if he takes a call in this Committee stage he can tell us. 
The US has similar rules and as I said the UK is covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Other provisions in the bill provide for a court to make an order forbidding the issue of a passport when sentencing a person for a terrorism-related offence and for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information for the purpose of aiding border security facilitating the processing of passengers or verifying the identity of a travel document holder. 
When we look at the important issues relating to national security at what has happened in the last 4 or 5 years as far as terrorism-related issues are concerned at the  
9/11 Commission Report 
 and at all the issues raised from that and a lot of other reports regarding national security in different countries—not that I have read many others apart from the one I have just mentioned—we start to realise the need for legislation such as this. I believe that it is unpatriotic when particular parties in this Parliament vote against legislation like this. It is not patriotic. For members to support and vote for legislation like this which will protect our national security all New Zealanders and cities like Wellington our capital city like Auckland our major city like the beautiful city of Christchurch and other cities is patriotic. 
I believe that this legislation supports and protects all New Zealanders. That is what it is all about. That is why New Zealand First has put pressure on this Government for the last 6 years even though the Government has been reluctant to pass legislation and even though it has had a couple of factions fighting each other. John Tamihere’s faction may be saying no and the other softie faction may be saying yes. Actually John Tamihere’s faction is probably saying yes and the other faction is saying no. Ten members would back John Tamihere to the hilt and 15 others would back him on a good day. They are probably saying that this legislation is good.