Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. This bill will not be referred to a select committee, as it is my intention to move its passage through all stages under urgency. This bill amends the Immigration Act to make it clear that the New Zealand Immigration Service can prioritise the order in which immigration applications are decided, and it contains provisions for lapsing the lower-ranking general skills category applications that are currently awaiting decisions. This bill will help to ensure that the Government’s immigration outcome objectives are met, by prioritising applicants with the best prospects of making a positive contribution to New Zealand and settling well. The provisions in this bill support and complement changes to the legislative framework for Government residence policy, contained in the Immigration Amendment Bill, which we have just referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Global prioritisation will enable residence applicants, with, for example, high contribution and settlement potential, to be given early consideration. This will help New Zealand to maximise the outcomes that can be achieved from immigration policy in what is the interim period, by prioritising on a global basis applications from those most likely to contribute to New Zealand and settle well. They will be decided first, rather than those who have lodged their application in a particular branch that may have more capacity or residence approval places available.

These provisions are needed because of the high number of general skills category residence applications that are currently on hand waiting to be decided, including many applicants who are unlikely to succeed here. Many of the applicants—up to 3,000 of them—are in the country at the moment. Many of them have relevant job offers under existing policy. This means that their applications for residence can be dealt with now—immediately—rather than having to wait for applications that have been in the pipeline for a very long period of time.

The reality is that this is the section of the bill that does have retrospective impact. The retrospective impact deals with the lapsing provisions. These lapsing provisions relate to certain applications made under the general skills category that are on hand awaiting consideration. The policy itself sets out very clearly which of the applicants will in fact be lapsed. Applications made before 20 November 2002, which have low settlement and contribution potential, and made by applicants with relevant job offers and high point-scores, will still be considered for approval. So this is certainly not a case of disposing of all of the applications that have been received under this category. In fact, it is about prioritising those that meet the intent of our immigration policy and of our skilled migration policy. It is about prioritising those, with the rest being lapsed.

High demand for residence over and above the number of places available in the New Zealand immigration programme has resulted in a queue of general skills category applications, and, without a mechanism to lapse some of those applications, the positive impact of skilled immigration policy changes designed to improve immigration outcomes—both for New Zealand and for new migrants—would be delayed for at least 2 years. Lapsing some lower-ranking applications currently queued will enable the remainder of applications with high contribution and settlement potential to be decided as a priority. This includes those applications involving opportunities in New Zealand that are available for a limited time. For example, when an employer has offered a position that must be taken up by a certain date, it is important that those applications are considered quickly.

The bill clarifies that lapsed applicants off shore will not have a right to seek a judicial review of the lapsing decision. It is common practice for access to judicial review not to be available to people who are outside the country. All lapsed applicants will receive a refund of the application fee paid, and I think that people need to understand that that was the basis for the appropriation that has been made to support this legislation. Just over $9 million has been set aside for the return of application fees.

I know that many of the lapsed applicants will be disappointed, but the question that I had to ask myself was this: what is better—lapsing the application and giving applicants back the money they had paid, or inviting them to travel all the way to New Zealand to find when they got here that they had nothing to offer New Zealand, and New Zealand had nothing to offer them? That is the reality of the previous general skills category, which gave a right to residence based on a set number of points.

In addition, the bill addresses the distinction between Government immigration policy and Government residence policy. That has arisen as a result of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment court case, but does not overrule the decision of the court in terms of retrospective application. I want to be clear about that. It is a provision that is forward looking and enables me to cancel the job-search visa provisions, which, as a result of the High Court decision, have been caught up in Government residence policy.

Having read the Cabinet paper that guided the National Party when it introduced the policy in respect of job-search visas, and the advice that I received in confirming that policy when I became the Minister, I can assure the House that the use of the job-search visa for people to take up residence on the basis of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs was never intended. The Cabinet paper is explicit in that regard. Nor was it ever seen or intended to be seen as an integral part of residence policy. The ability to decline an application for a job-search visa matched temporary entry policy, not Government residence policy, which is why it was non-transferable and non-renewable. There was a 6-month period of an open work permit to look for the points required for residence under a system that automatically approved residence on the passing of an ever-changing level of points. It was more like a limited purpose visa, because it could not be translated into anything other than the residence permit if a job offer was able to be obtained, yet it has become entangled in Government residence policy.

The bill does three things: it confirms the global prioritisation approach to considering applications, it lapses those that do not meet the priority criteria, and it confirms the distinction between Government immigration policy and Government residence policy. I do want to make a point in respect of those who say that they speak on behalf of immigration consultants in this country. I have just received an email from somebody who describes himself as being the director of the largest immigration firm handling migration to New Zealand or Australia from Europe. He states: “From an initial perusal of the information, I can confirm that due to our company’s very strong in-house settlement and recruitment programme, we foresee little effect on the majority of our clients’ overall eligibility to emigrate to New Zealand, and we shall start tomorrow to incorporate the changes into our firm’s procedure and advice. Such changes to regulation and statute have little negative consequence for applicants who are in a strong position to start a new life in New Zealand. Our 25 staff in Christchurch, five staff in London, six staff in Amsterdam, and five staff in Australia will commence work tomorrow on placing into effect the Government’s changes.”

A number of people have spoken out in favour of the changes we are making, and I can certainly tell the House that I agree with this statement: “We insist on a clean and well-defined system of immigration which is beneficial to New Zealand and New Zealanders, not the kind of policy that looks at quantity and not quality. We really don’t care where the immigrants come from, so long as they are able to integrate into our society, be gainfully employed, and contribute to economic development.” So said Mr Winston Peters, and I support that. This legislation makes that happen.

The question that will be on the lips of those who have listened to the Minister’s introductory comments, and also listened to the earlier debate, is what is the Government trying to hide here? What is the Government trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament and the public about, with this measure? As I said in relation to the earlier bill, this is not a measure that has been paraded with great fanfare by the Prime Minister and other Ministers through the normal routes prior to it coming to the House. This is a measure that the Government has snuck into the House under urgency, and that it now expects the House to deal with through all stages. I ask the Minister what the justification for that urgency for all stages of this bill was in her speech. There was none. What we got was a decent load of political flannel from a Minister who is essentially trying to do a retrospective tidying-up after many months of neglect and incompetence in the management of her portfolio. [Interruption] The chief Government whip might well say why he was complicit in this cover-up as well. He was the one who was trying to shepherd politicians from other political parties to go to some trumped-up briefing being held by officials from the Immigration Service over in the Minister’s suite this afternoon.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: They never asked us.

They did not invite Mr Peters? That was a very serious oversight. Mr Benson-Pope should take note that the Rt Hon Winston Peters should be on his invitation list next time he is going to hold a briefing of this sort.

I want to say to that chief Government whip—who is a smart alec beyond all smart alecs in the House—that that member had better get used to the fact that if he is going to try those sorts of cheap political tricks as he introduces legislation into this House under urgency, expecting it to go through all stages, he will find he will have to work a lot harder for his money than he has so far.

The concern I have about this legislation is that it is fundamentally challenging the expectations that people are entitled to have when they do a deal with the New Zealand Government, and the Minister did not give us good and sufficient reason—and she has plenty more stages of the bill to go through to try to earn her keep—for the retrospective legislation that is currently before the House.

I want to put it to the House that it is pretty simple. The Minister had some months. She had a briefing document when she was appointed Minister, she was given some advice by her officials, she had plenty of opportunity to change the criteria at that stage, and she did nothing. She did nothing, and much later in the piece—I give credit to Mr Peters here; one might regard his motives as good or bad, but he put the blowtorch on her—the Minister engaged in a panic reaction. I have seen the paperwork that went to the Cabinet, which she delayed releasing under the Official Information Act as long as she possibly could. It demonstrated that there was not a good and proper analysis, and a good and proper process, around the changes that were made. It showed me quite clearly that it was simply a panic reaction because Mr Peters put the blowtorch on her.

Whether Mr Peters was right or wrong, I say to the Minister that it was quite wrong for her to embark on major changes to the immigration policy of New Zealand, affecting the future make-up of our country, our growth prospects, and everything else, on the basis of a knee-jerk, panic reaction. And now we have a Minister who was taken to the High Court by one of the interested groups involved, and had Justice Randerson deliver a judgment of some 64 pages, which I have had a look at. I refer the Minister in particular to page 31, in which he basically says the Minister had no legal authority for what she did. Not only was she engaging in a panic political reaction because Mr Peters put the blowtorch on her, but also she got it wrong in law. She did not actually do her homework about what her legal authority was, and she did not take any decent advice. Members just have to read page 31 of Justice Randerson’s judgment to see that.

The Minister thought “Oh well, there is a bit of a problem here.”, so she announced on 17 June 2003 that she was going to appeal this case to the Court of Appeal.

I have a copy of that press release here, which states: “Government to appeal immigration case”. The Minister called a press conference, put out a press statement, and told the nation’s media and the public that Justice Randerson was wrong and that the Government was going along to the Court of Appeal, which would put it right. The Court of Appeal would prove the Government and the Minister right. Today, under cover of urgency and a last-minute briefing of some political parties—but not others—we have a bill introduced to the House that is designed to do what Justice Randerson would not do in the High Court, and what the Court of Appeal, most assuredly, would not have done on the basis of the shonky case that that Minister would have taken to the Court of Appeal.

I say to members of the public who are tuned in to this, and those who are interested in immigration policy generally, that we should cut through the political flannel and all the weasel words of the Minister in charge of the bill, Lianne Dalziel, and just focus on a couple of things here. The Minister has engaged in an accumulating series of political bungles. She finally got caught out and had to make some retrospective changes, and finally had the High Court say that she could not do legally what she wanted to do. She said that she would appeal to the Court of Appeal and now knows that she has not got a hope in hell of winning in that court, so she is here tonight asking nicely whether Parliament will kindly pass this bill through all its stages under urgency. I say to the Minister that that is sheer cheek, and if she had any good faith in this matter, she would have approached the Opposition parties and told us that she knew she had made a mess but New Zealand would suffer unless we do something to tidy up the mistakes she had made, and that she was asking for our indulgence.

If she had done that, I would have had a look at it. I am sure Mr Peters, if he had been invited to the briefing and if he had had an opportunity to indulge the Minister in that way, would have given it very careful and thoughtful consideration; and that Mr Prebble, who is known as one of the most reasonable members of the House and a man who brings a fine legal mind to these matters, would have weighed up the political embarrassment of the Minister, on the one hand, and the need to tidy up the affairs of New Zealand’s important immigration policy, on the other. I am sure that sheer sweet reason would have appealed to his judgment in this matter, as well.

But that is not what the Minister has done. The Minister has gone along behind closed doors and done some shabby little deal with the United Future party, which has somehow managed to find its way to the presiding officers of Parliament but nowhere else. That party is now being cut in on the Government’s speaking time on this legislation under urgency, while we shamelessly try to rectify the foolish mistakes that this Minister has made.

I say to United Future that this will not be forgotten, if those members want to cooperate with such a stupid, shameless exercise in covering up for the incompetence of that Minister. This is a measure that that Minister will need to justify clause by clause to the House and to the Committee of the whole House as she insists on taking this legislation through all its stages over the next day or two.

I say that these are important matters of principle. The principle of not passing retrospective legislation is an important one. It is overridden by Parliament from time to time for good reasons, and the Minister needs to front up with those reasons. If she wants to plead good reason on this occasion, she also needs to apologise. She needs to come clean with the House about the mistakes and the foolish errors she made that got her ruled against by the High Court. She needs to apologise for telling the country, the media, and Parliament on 17 June that she had a solution to her woes that was to be found in the Court of Appeal, and that she has now had some advice that proves that that is not the case. I say that that Minister will have to do a good deal better if she wants us to pass over that principle of not passing retrospective legislation, on this occasion.

I was becoming a little worried after my last speech, when Winston Peters climbed into me, so I thought I had better check New Zealand First’s immigration policy. I was most surprised when I saw that it states: “To give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” I thought that was what we were doing here: developing a population policy that integrates immigration policy and economic policy. Here I am, a poor new MP, getting climbed into, and wondering what the problem is here. Winston Peters complains that the current immigration policy is not working. I thought that if something did not work, we were supposed to fix it. Winston Peters admitted in the debate on the first reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill that we need to bring in skilled migrants to meet the needs of the country. I agree with that; I am short of mechanics myself.

The first thing tonight about the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) is that it must be viewed in conjunction with the Immigration Amendment Bill that we debated earlier today. This bill is the first practical stage in the Government’s new policy for skilled migrants. The bill covers two groups of migrants. To start with, the bill aims to prioritise the general skills category applications that are currently in the system, of which there are about 20,000, representing approximately 46,000 people. As soon as the bill is passed, those with a job offer relevant to their skills, or with high points, will be prioritised in the queue. The applications currently in the system of those who do not have a relevant job offer or sufficient points will lapse, and their fee will be refunded. That will not affect those who already have a job search visa, or those whose residence decision is imminent, although the Immigration Service will no longer invite people to apply for a job search visa in order to get a relevant offer of employment in New Zealand.

The current backlog represents almost 2 years of potential approvals under the general skills category, and although many of those applications meet the minimum points requirement, only 57 percent had relevant job offers in the last year. Many of those who have applied are already in New Zealand on work permits, or came here to look for work before they applied. I underline the point that people will still be free to do that. In fact, their experience in New Zealand would count in their favour should they subsequently receive a job offer and apply for residency. I see that Mr Peters is now starting to recognise how great this bill is. Sixty-two percent of the principal applicants approved for residence in 2002-03 have previously held a student, work, or visitor permit at some stage.

The bill is also intended to manage the number of general skills applications that the Immigration Service is bound to receive between the introduction of the bill today and the implementation of the new policy. Every time immigration policy changes, a flood of applications is immediately lodged in an effort to be considered under the old policy, before the new one comes into full effect. From 1 July, principal applicants must have a job offer relevant to their skills or qualifications. That is entirely consistent with the intent of the Immigration Amendment Bill we debated earlier, and ensures that everyone will be treated in the same way. It is also the reason that this bill must go through all stages today: to stop one group of applicants from using the window of opportunity presented by the normal legislative process to submit their applications under the old rules.

This bill is about prioritisation, but the side effect of that will be to let the applications of those who do not have a job offer lapse. The Immigration Service cannot take the top candidates at the bottom of the pile without letting lapse the applications of those who have no immediate prospect of getting a job. We do not want to miss out on the opportunity to bring in qualified and experienced migrants who already have a skilled job to come to. The number of applications on hand has to be managed, so that there is no danger of exceeding the places available in the programme. Expressions of interest will lapse on a regular basis—probably quarterly—to ensure that the pool of applicants does not become a queue.

Previous speakers have already argued against the rapid nature of this change and the introduction of these two bills under urgency, but it must be remembered that the Immigration Amendment Bill has passed its first reading only. It will go through the normal select committee process at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and there will be further opportunities to debate it in the House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it will not.

That is correct. As for the interim bill that we are currently debating—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is not going to a select committee.

As for the interim bill we are currently debating, I say to Mr Peters, given its alignment with the primary bill, I think the experience of the next few months will greatly inform the select committee about how the shift in policy will work in practice. For example, the select committee may want to look at whether the idea of lapsing unsuccessful applicants after 3 months is workable and fair.

Another point to reiterate is that there will be no significant change in the number of people who gain residency here. There is essentially a new filter in the application process, because the Government is inviting people to apply. But only the number of applications provided for in the New Zealand Immigration Programme will be considered. That number remains at 45,000, with 60 percent of it set aside for skilled migrants, and that will continue for the next 3 years. If anything, the approval process should be much faster than it is now, but the total number will remain stable and predictable.

To conclude, this bill prioritises those currently on the list who already have job offers, rather than those who do not have a job and could end up on the dole. I think that most New Zealanders would find that pretty hard to argue against, but I guess we will find out shortly whether that is the case.

That was a very interesting speech—I thought so when the member made the same speech on the other bill before teatime, and I still think so, but it was on the wrong bill. I tell Mr Adams that the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) is not going to a select committee; it will be rammed through all its stages tonight, with United Future’s help. Here we are, in the dead of night, with no forewarning at all—no notice whatsoever—with the Government ramming retrospective legislation through this House, without any recourse whatsoever to a select committee or to the public of this country. Mr Adams and—[Interruption] What are they called? United Future members? I thought they were called lapdogs, but let us not mind that. The United Future party will back this bill.

Did anybody see the Holmes show tonight? What a joke it was. There was bluster, bluff, and blarney, with everybody trying to talk over everybody else, and Mr Milnes said we have had 15 months of mess. Those are not my words or the words of New Zealand First, but the words of an immigration expert. Then came the big you-know-what—then came the big porky.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Porky isn’t here.

I am talking about another porky, not the member. The reality is this—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The word “porky” has been ruled out of order by Mr Speaker.

OK. Then came another you-know-what, meaning that what was said was at variance with the truth. The interviewer asked the Minister whether she was bringing in this bill because she had lost a court case, and do members know what the Minister said? On national television she said no, when everybody here in this House knows that this bill is here because she lost the court case. She said in mid-June that she would go to a higher court and appeal the decision. Then, of course, somebody with decent qualifications came along and told the Minister her understanding of the law was slightly wrong, and she would waste the taxpayers’ money if she went to the Court of Appeal or the Privy Council. The Minister was told that she would lose all the way. That is why we have this retrospective bill—and this comes from the party that went around saying New Zealand First was a terrible party because it was saying awful things about immigrants.

I will tell the Government what New Zealand First would not do: we would not go and take away people’s legal rights—that is the first thing we would not do—unlike the embarrassed Minister. [Interruption] I tell her that there is no use in getting nervous, with that high-pitched laugh. It states in the explanatory note of the bill that clause 5 “ensures that past prioritisation of the processing of applications for visas and permits cannot be challenged in the courts.”—she hopes! The Minister has no idea, but she hopes that it cannot be challenged in the courts. How many Ministers of Immigration have been along to the High Court in such a spectacular way? Then she became vindictive, and retrospectively moved against not one but 20,000 people of whom she had said she was the great defender. And 20,000 is a stab in the dark, as well. Now she has the classic provision whereby she will have decisions made by her discretion, or by that of an appropriately delegated immigration or visa officer. If ever I saw an invitation for corruption to occur, that is it.

Do members know what clause 3 of the bill states? Members will love that clause. It states that in no circumstances does a decision on the issue or grant of a temporary or a limited purpose visa or permit constitute a decision under Government residence policy.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That is right.

That is what she says. I ask the Minister why, if this is the way it should be, she did not tell us 2 years ago that we would have 45,000 people coming here—and 2 months ago it was 72,800.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was not 72,800.

Yes it was, and there is no use in getting hysterical about that, because the figures are all out there from the Department of Statistics. They were gleaned by a professor from Waikato University, and no one has disputed them before.

My real question is to the Māori members—those tigers on the marae.

💬 Pansy Wong: Where?

That is a good question. They are always talking tino rangatiratanga, and say the party listens to the Māori caucus. They have a Minister and a party that is bringing in more people from Asia than the Māori population in the next 10 years alone. The Government will bring in more Asians than the Māori population, which has been here for 1,000 years, in just 10 years, and those Māori members over there on the Government benches will back that. So I ask them, please, not to talk to me about tino rangatiratanga, and the foreshore and land rights, when they know full well that if they go to Cockle Bay today they will not get one cockle, whatsoever.

💬 Dail Jones: What do they call the beach?

Do members know what it is called now? It used to be called Cockle Beach, but is now called “China Beach”. At one time, we could all go down to get a feed of cockles at any time, but now we cannot get one.

Meanwhile, what is Mr Tamihere—who, by his own definition, is a giant in the Māori world—doing about the situation? He says: “Yes, Helen, yes, Helen, three bags full.”, or, “How high do you want me to jump?”, and then he goes public in the newspapers, and writes an article. But when the heat goes on, we do not have a warrior; we have a worrier. Mr Tamihere is really powerful on the marae, but when he gets inside the Cabinet room and Helen has a word to him, he begins to understand what people say about those men who hide behind the skirts of women.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Are you jealous?

No, no. I do not think that someone who is prepared to see the Māori population superseded by immigrants not once, but twice, within 20 years is doing anything for Māoridom, for this country, for Auckland, or for our hospitals, our schools, our jobs, or our welfare system.

The Minister in charge of social services and employment was asked how many immigrants are on the sickness benefit, the unemployment benefit, the student allowance, and the subsidised work schemes. Other Ministers were asked how many immigrants are accessing our education services, health services, accident compensation, and State housing, and at what cost. Do members know what the Ministers said? They said they could not tell me, because they do not keep those figures. Yet they keep on going around the country saying that immigration is good for New Zealand. That is as shallow and superficial as it ever gets. Those Ministers have no idea why immigration is good, but, apparently, it is like Epsom salts—if a person takes it, that will somehow be good for him or her. It tastes like crap, but we are told it will be good for us. That is the problem.

💬 Steve Chadwick: That’s a bit old-fashioned.

I want to ask “Stevie Nicks” from Rotorua this simple question: how many people in Rotorua support this policy? There is not a word, a syllable, a mutter or a sound now.

Do members know what happened? The party over there in Government—the “finger in the wind” party—that does everything on the basis of the polls and the views of its focus groups, found out in the Sunday Star-Times that its contention that immigration was good for New Zealanders and was supported by them was wrong. The Sunday Star-Times pointed out that less than 16 percent of New Zealanders supports the Government’s policy. That is panic station - time for that party. Those members know full well that in the last pre-election campaign we promised three things, and we will fix them up. First of all, we will fix the Minister. We will make sure that on this policy we fix her good and proper. We will fix her mind, so that she understands what is going on. I hear those Labour members over there on the Government side of the House cheering—members like the senior Government whip. How did he get that job? It must have been in a raffle, because it cannot be on the basis of talent, leadership, ability, or respect as some sort of leader in the caucus.

One of the reasons that Labour will lose the 2005 election—or whenever it flies the white flag—is that it has a totally stupid, fatalist immigration policy. That is a fact. There are other reasons, as well. But Labour will lose when the crunch goes on, as it did in the last campaign and Labour went down 14 percent in 4 weeks flat. If the New Zealand media got off its backside and was halfway towards being impartial, Labour would go down by twice that figure, because the media knows the Labour Party’s support is as soft as hell on this issue. I warn Labour to draw back now, before it is too late.

I rise to take a brief call in support of the first reading of this bill. One can be surprised that Mr Peters supports the consideration of over 10,000 applications, even when we know they are from people who will not get proposed or skilled jobs. The bill enables the lapsing of applications, so that we can protect those skilled applicants who have offers of skilled jobs and who will do very well here. May I just finally add as a parting comment that with the collective IQ of the Labour caucus we know, having tested the nation, that we are right.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I must have been terribly busy, but that speech went by so fast I want an extension of time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

I want to move an extension of time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member cannot do that.

Yes, I can.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am sorry, Mr Peters.

I seek leave to move an extension of time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. There is a Speaker’s ruling and a Standing Order, as well.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that you pause and reflect on what you just said. It is my understanding that any member can seek leave for anything. The decision is then placed in the hands of the House. The Rt Hon Winston Peters sought the leave of the House to move for an extension of time. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that you are required to put that leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 1/5 and Speaker’s ruling 1/1 (Supplement). A member cannot actually seek leave for someone else.

I say to the member who has just made a contribution that she was obliged to give the House a decent speech on this matter. We are debating a very serious matter. This bill is being passed under urgency and therefore cannot be referred to the public.

The bill does two things. It not only lapses applications, as the member said—and I will come back to that later—but also overturns a High Court decision. That High Court decision was not an idle one. It was made by Justice Randerson. I have a copy of it. Members can get it from the library. I would like to think that Labour Party members all got a copy of it before they decided to agree with the Minister cavalierly telling us that a High Court judge is wrong. I found that extremely arrogant. The judge made a 60-page decision, which the Minister publicly said she would take to the Court of Appeal and now has decided not to. I ask whether United Future members have read that decision. Before United Future decided to allow this Parliament to overturn a court decision, did anyone of its members read the decision?

💬 An Hon Member: No!

No, they did not.

💬 Ron Mark: They’re just poodles.

They are absolute poodles. This bill not only overturns that decision but also does something else that this House never does. When we decide to change the law, we normally say that those who have had their day in court will not have the fruits of their victory taken away from them. In this case the Government has decided to do that, as well. What does that say about the rule of law? I know that the Government is suddenly going in for doing that and saying to people that they cannot bring property claims any more. In this case the Government has picked on a group of people who have hired lawyers, gone to court, and found out that they were right. This Government has not only changed the law but also has said that those people who went to court are to have their rights taken away. I can see why the Minister wants to do that under urgency. There is such a thing as fair play and a having fair go, but the Government has taken no notice of either of those. Since when has the law been as the Minister told us: “Oh, I’ve got a Cabinet paper that says I meant it to be something different.”? That is not the law of the land. Police States do that sort of thing. It is the statutes passed by this House that count.

Members should know what this case is all about. I will read from the judgment: It starts off: “With effect from midnight on 19 November 2002 the Minister of Immigration introduced significant changes to immigration policy under the Immigration Act 1987. For present purposes the relevant changes fall into two broad categories. First, for people applying for residence in the general skills category there was a tightening of the English language standard, and for those who later made an associated application for a job search visa there was a requirement that the applicant have qualifications to obtain employment in New Zealand in an area of occupational shortage.” The applicants went to court, and said: “I’ve come to New Zealand. I’m seeking a job. Basically, I did it under a contract from the Government that if I found a job offer I would have a job made available to me.” This Government is saying to that group of people—people who have spent many times their life savings—that we will overturn that decision.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Not one in New Zealand.

I see.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Not of the ones who were seeking job search visas.

None of those are in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The 20,000 in New Zealand will get residence.

They will get residence?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes, they will.

Then why is the Minister passing this legislation? Who are the people affected? [Interruption] I asked the Minister a straight-out question, under urgency. She has interrupted me.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I’ve already answered it.

She has already answered it. If we are allowed to have a media press conference and be prepared to go out and talk to every group in the country about the bill, why can the Minister not talk to an elected member of Parliament?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The member should do his homework.

Now I am told to do my homework. I was only told about this bill at 4.15 p.m. today. In fact, I went to three different offices in the building to try to find out where the briefing was. Mr Peters did not even find it. The Minister did not even tell him. Now I am trying to ask her questions across the House.

I ask United Future members, who support this bill, what sort of legislative procedure this is. I did do some homework. I had a look at this decision, and on page 31 I read the statement by the judge. It seemed to me to be pretty straightforward. He said that the purpose of section C was undoubtedly to give an applicant and his family or her family an assurance that their residence application would be processed on the basis of policies existing at the date of their application. That is what he said the law is. I asked the Minister where her moral authority is to change that decision. She said her moral authority is that her statement of the law is correct. If that is so, the Minister should go to the Court of Appeal. She should have the Court of Appeal uphold her. We all know that her own legal advisers have told her that when she made her decision at midnight on 19 November, she was wrong. She was wrong legally, and she has stripped away those peoples’ rights. She now tells us not to worry about those people, as they are not in New Zealand. Well, I say to the Minister, what about the honour and integrity of New Zealand? What about the honour and integrity of the New Zealand Government?

This Government accepted money. It accepted people’s applications. People put their lives on hold to come to this country, thinking that this was a Government that was committed to the rule of law and that the United Future party was bringing decency into public life, that they were going to do their research, and that they would not be doormats. Those people thought they would be able to come to a land of opportunity. Instead, they found that we have a Minister of Immigration who is prepared, under urgency, to try to get what she cannot get in the courts, and then go one stage further and take away from them—from people who do believe in the rule of law—the benefits of their court victory.

Maybe we have done that before. I do not know. I ask Mr Peters whether he can remember when we have reversed a court case and taken the victory away from those who had won. I cannot think of one. Perhaps members opposite who have done their research can think of a case where the New Zealand Parliament has not only reversed a case but also then taken away the victory of those who went to court. If members opposite can think of such a case—I am sure they debated it in their caucus—then when was it? When did it happen? When have we had a Government that has acted in this way? Or do they say that it does not matter, as none of them are voters? That appears to be the standard Ms Dalziel is following.

I say to the House that this is an outrage. It is absolutely wrong. It is an abuse of our powers. We do not have a written constitution. We depend upon members of Parliament to uphold what is right and decent. We depend upon people like the last speaker to read the bill and to decide to do justice, and to do justice to everyone—not just to New Zealand citizens but to people who trusted this Government and who trusted New Zealand enough to give us some money, fill out application forms, and put their lives on hold to come here, only to be treated by the Labour Party and the United Future party in this contemptible fashion. I will vote against this measure.

This is a technical bill that I am proud to support.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have the Hansard record, but I could not hear that speech because of the degree of laughter around me at the time. I wonder whether the member could repeat her speech.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I said that I could not hear the member’s speech because of the noise in the House. That is a point of order, with respect.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s speech was able to be heard.

The Greens have some sympathy for the Immigration Service and the difficulties it faces with the backlog of applications—20,000 applications, which will take 2 years to process, is a very sorry state indeed. Clearly, the measures that the Government has taken to attempt to deal with them have not been sufficient.

The Greens will certainly not be supporting this bill because we do not support a bill that arbitrarily deprives people of their just process. We accept that applicants who apply for residency in this country, through various processes, do have a limited expectation. A country must retain the ability to make policy appropriate in the circumstances surrounding immigration, but surely not in such a way as to eliminate completely a just process—to take that process from those who, in good faith, have met the Government’s requirements and have been waiting, some for up to 2 years, for their application to proceed.

We could consider supporting this bill if it were the case that the backlog—that is, those applications that have been lodged up until today—was dealt with under the old rules as set out by the High Court, which are the rules that applied at the time the application was made, and that any application lodged as of today was to be dealt with under any new rules that arise out of the select committee process in relation to the later bill. That would ensure a just process for those already in the system, but would also avoid a rush of applications that could undermine the efficacy of the new set of rules that is likely to come into force at some point. But the bill does not do this. Instead, applicants who have met the Government’s requirements, paid their money, and have waited and waited, will be punished because the Government could not provide the resources to enable the Immigration Service to deal with applications in a timely fashion.

This bill is a breach of natural justice. Applicants should not be arbitrarily deprived of a just process. The bill overrides a decision of the court, depriving those people of their right to access and to receive justice in that forum. The process by which this House is dealing with this bill is a disgrace, and the Greens will oppose it.

I rise in support of the bill. It is yet another example of the common-sense approach of this Government. I am proud to support it.

This is getting bizarre. We have Labour back-benchers. At least the Labour Māori caucus will take a stand. The other Labour back-benchers simply fall over. Why can they not just admit that they do not receive briefings from their Minister? Why do they just stand and say nothing? It is embarrassing. I could not understand why the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not happy this evening. At least Mr Paul Adams of United Future came out, at long last, and admitted that Labour and United Future have been studying New Zealand First’s immigration policy. Therefore, they were doing quite well in copying New Zealand First’s immigration policy, yet obviously they still fall far short. I can look forward to a lot more legislation coming from Labour and United Future, modelled on New Zealand First’s immigration policy. At least we got that much truth out of this need for the House to sit under urgency. If it were not such a serious issue, it would be almost quite comical.

There are two parts to this legislation. I was saddened to hear Mr Paul Adams of United Future, and of Christian beliefs, say that the applications of 10,000 people lapsed, but that it is better for them, even though they paid the money. They were led down the garden path. Why not? How Christian can one be? It is just 10,000 people. Hey, who cares? What is the big deal?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: They get the money back.

The Minister says their money is refunded. They have been waiting for 2 years, putting their life on hold. But she says: “Big deal, the people get the fees back.” Let me tease out some logic in the debate from this Minister of Immigration and Mr Paul Adams. They stood up just now, on the Immigration Amendment Bill, and said that immigration was good and that there is a research paper that shows there is a $1.7 billion net benefit, so why complain? They also talked about wanting potential migrants who would contribute. What happened to the resources to process those migrants in the pool?

There is another point that the Minister of Immigration may want to answer. It is quite interesting. She lowered the passing mark just at the beginning of this year, from 30 to 29, and then she complained that there is a growing list of people wanting to come to New Zealand. The Labour Government needs to come clean and accept that it has simply lost the plot. The Minister was never on top of her job. At least we were told by Prime Minister Helen Clark and by Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen that the only reason the Minister of Immigration should keep her job is that at least she is a hard-working Minister—not competent but hard-working. Now we know she is not even hard-working. There is a 2½ year backlog of applications. How can that Minister be described as hard-working? At least the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister come out with this truth. They say that they know the Minister of Immigration is not competent but she is hard-working. Now we know that even that was not true.

The second part is about overriding a court case. On page 33 of the judgment the judge says that he is satisfied that the immigration policy, effective from 20 November 2002, is invalid because of a breach of section 13C of the Immigration Act. The judgment is very clear. Let us spare a thought for the plaintiff that brought the case to court.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Who was it?

The New Zealand Association for Migration and Investments Incorporated. It spent $100,000. It used to be mates with the Minister of Immigration. Members can see how fast the Labour Government can get upset. Just now the Minister was reading out an immigration consultant’s letter, and because the consultant praises the Minister, it is the good guy. If one challenges the Labour Government, boy one will get it.

The immigration association spent $100,000, and obviously the Minister of Immigration spent the same amount of taxpayers’ money—wasted—to defend a case that, if she had worked hard and sought good advice, could have avoided that legal fee being funded by taxpayers. Then she bluffed to the public and said that the judge was wrong and she would appeal. Tonight I think it has been proved categorically that the judgment delivered was correct. What did the Government do? It rushed through legislation in the middle of the night that totally went against the principle that people who won their case should keep the fruits of victory.

I thought that the Minister of Immigration, wanting the cooperation of the Opposition parties, could learn to be a bit humble and modest and at least accept that she got it wrong. We will never get that from an arrogant Minster and an arrogant Government. She will not get any cooperation. We will ask all the hard questions and she had better be prepared to come up with some good answers. She should not hide away. She did not come to the briefing session with the Opposition MPs. Instead, she fronted up to Television One but she did not talk about this legislation. She talked only about the legislation that was going to a select committee. She did not mention this bill, but was caught out by people reminding her of the court case.

Why is the Minister rushing through this legislation? She built into the legislation the discretionary power to lapse of immigration applications. She has the legislative power to impose that measure any time. There was really no reason for her to try to rush through the first part of this legislation. That is the only way that we can assess her desire to legislate away a victory by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investments Incorporated. If that is the only good question a Deputy Prime Minister can ask, we are a bit concerned. I wish the Deputy Prime Minister were in charge of the Immigration Service. I bet he would do a slightly better job. It would not be much better, but it would be slightly better.

The sad part is that in the last term of the Labour Government, the Government sent the Immigration Service to India and all sorts of places to encourage people to apply to migrate to New Zealand. When people listened and accepted that there might be a welcome mat in New Zealand, what did the Government do? On 19 November 2002, at 12 a.m., it brought in legislation, changed the rules, and pulled the mat from under their feet. Then, when it lost a case, it got even worse. It rushed through legislation and tried to bluff by saying it would appeal the court case. Yet it has tried to abuse the process of Parliament by not briefing Opposition MPs properly, by not letting the public have a say by not going through the select committee process. I think that tonight is a very, very sad day for principles. There has been a lack of transparency and abuse of process.

It is appropriate that one of the other immigrants in this House also gets to speak in this debate. I could never understand why the National Party gets so worked up on immigration, but, of course, we raised the level for the English language test. Suddenly, it struck me that if National Party members had to sit the English-language test, over half of them would have to leave the country. They would certainly be led by Dr Nick Smith who has only a passing acquaintance with the English language, and is now known on this side of the House as the “Eternal Corporal”.

I shall take the member who has just spoken through the issue of fruits of litigation. It is a bit rich from a party that abolished area health boards overnight under urgency with nobody knowing what was coming; a bit rich from a party that passed legislation in relation to the Whangarei dispute in 1984; and a bit rich from a party that got the Clyde Dam built only because it overrode litigation that had succeeded against that measure. But never mind, that the member has not been here long enough to know the history of her own party is all one can assume from the kind of speech she gives in this House.

She says that it is wrong to take away the fruits of litigation. Who litigated in this case? It was the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investments Incorporated, a highly worthy group of people, some of who are somewhat less worthy than others it has to be said to be fair. There are some fairly dodgy characters around there, drawn from former members of Parliament of the least worthy variety in many instances. However, in legislating tonight, what single immigrant has lost the fruit of his or her litigation? This is not like the Western Samoan Citizenship Act where there was a litigant whose rights had to be preserved. There is not a single litigant who is affected by this legislation who was a litigant in the case. The litigants are the people who make the money out of the business of immigration. All the bill does is restore what successive Governments had assumed to be the policy that some judge decided was not.

At some point under our system we have to assert parliamentary sovereignty against judicial activism. We have heard from members opposite that we should not have a Supreme Court in New Zealand, because we might have judicial activism. But lo and behold, when they are faced with an occasional Tory on the High Court bench waking up long enough to be active, they say: “Oh, we must abide by that. It would be totally wrong for Her Majesty’s sovereign Parliament; the Crown in Parliament, to decide what the policy should be.” I tell Ms Wong that that is what Parliament is for. That is what she does in the 3 days, 32 weeks a year, that she works as a back-bench Opposition list MP. What she gets paid roughly a thousand bucks a day to do in this particular Chamber is, in the end, to decide what the policy is. I know that it is hard work, I know that it is tough, and I know that she has to take responsibility for it, but hard cheese, some day, who knows, eventually in 15 years’ time she might even have to do it from this side of the House, but do not bet on that after the way things went this afternoon with the Leader of the Opposition. I think would be better to stick to Sheba rather than Solomon, going by the speech he gave this afternoon.

I come back to the first part of the bill and I shall read what it says in the note: “By prioritising on a global basis, applications from those most likely to contribute to New Zealand and settle well in New Zealand will be decided first, rather than those who have lodged their application in a particular branch that may have more capacity or residence approval places available.” What does the member not understand about that? What does the member disagree with that about? Or does she think we should decide basically on the basis of which office had the most places available and what the queuing was at that point, rather than on who is best suited to come to this country? What other country in the world would not assert its sovereign right to decide immigration on that basis?

💬 Ron Mark: New Zealand, until today.

It is all very well for Mr Mark. He did not have to apply to get into New Zealand. He was born here, and unfortunately we are stuck with him. But some of us actually have to get into the country, and we understand that those who do, get chosen. Some of those who are here, unfortunately, we would prefer to get rid of, if we could, but nobody else would take them. I mean, we have tried to sell New Zealand First as a job lot, but nobody else in the world wanted to take it. Jorg Haider said: “I’ve already got that lot.”, and Mr Le Penn said: “They’re a bunch of woolly-woofter, sickly white liberals, as far as I’m concerned.” So they were not very interested in New Zealand First.

This bill is a good bill. It is a necessary bill, and I have not yet heard a single argument from the serried ranks of National—all three of them. They have failed to put up a central argument yet against the bill.

The deputy leader of the Labour Party is going to be terribly embarrassed, because in this particular case the Government actually did decide its policy. The Government had a policy, and the judge made the point that it did not carry it out properly. That was the fault of the case. The policy was there; it was clear, but it was not administered properly. That is why we keep on saying that this Minister of Immigration must go. She does not know how to do her job. That is what it is all about.

Mr Cullen has not understood the court case. Obviously, he was not at the briefing, and has not been in touch with the Minister of Immigration. He has not understood this bill. As Pansy Wong said, we know what the Government’s policy was. It was clear, and everyone lodged their applications based on the Government’s policy. All of those 20,000 people, whether they were from Taiwan, China, or goodness knows where, were abused in an insulting way by this minority Labour Government in terms of their command of the English language. They filled out their applications properly, using good English. They were carrying out the Government’s policy decisions, just as the Labour Party absolutely messed it up. That is all that Justice Randerson was saying—that the Government did not do its job properly. The Government had all those cases that it was very embarrassed about. So what did it do? It decided it was not happy with the decision the High Court judge made and would break every constitutional precept by repealing it by legislation. Have we not heard that somewhere before? This time it is doing it. One just wonders what it is doing in the back rooms, even today. What do the Māori members have to say about that? One just wonders what is going on behind closed doors.

The deputy leader of the Labour Party, Dr Michael Cullen, would have assessed the situation as a history professor, and in that fashion he got it wrong. But looking at it from a legal viewpoint, Murray McCully, in the very early party of this debate, made the position clear, as, in her lucid fashion, did Pansy Wong. We all understood her so clearly. She and I get on very well these days. One has to be very careful. We got close on the Business Law Reform Bill, and we are getting close on this bill, as well. Someone is going to start talking soon. I cannot always understand what she says, which is perhaps a shame—or good for her, I am never quite sure. But Pansy Wong was lucid on this bill, she was clear, and she got it right. It is just that Dr Michael Cullen got it absolutely wrong. The Labour Party was trying to carry its policy out, but it did so ineffectually and badly. That is why New Zealand First has said time and time again that this Minister must go.

What do we have here that is being rushed through under urgency? The whole situation is confused by there being two immigration bills, one of which is to go to the select committee. As we all know, with the first bill the Government is giving itself wide powers to do virtually what it likes. It is going to the select committee, but it contains nothing specific. The Government talked about how it would use the first bill, but it contains nothing specific. All we know about the Labour Party policy is what the geography professors at Waikato University indicated, which is that to the year ended 2002, 190,000 people came into New Zealand as a result of Labour Party policies. Only 52,000 of those migrated in the normal way; 75,000 were students; and another 65,000 or so were people looking for work permits. I presume that those 65,000 would have been part of this potential group. The Labour Party has abused the plaintiffs in this action, because it seems that all the applicants were overseas. Just because they were not in New Zealand, the Labour Party has derided them, making snide remarks about the fact that they were overseas. What does that do for New Zealand’s status in East Asia? What does it do for New Zealand and China? What does it do for New Zealand and Taiwan?

At the last election, New Zealand First said that far too many people were coming into New Zealand, and now we discover that in the year ended 2002, 190,000 came here as immigrants, one way or another. On almost the first day I was in Parliament, which was in September last year, there were cries about New Zealand First being racist. What do we have here today? We have a Labour Party that is denying about 46,000 applicants—the figure seems to be somewhat confused, but it is 20,000 plus—the right they had, and that the High Court judge said they had, to apply to come to New Zealand. Is there something about those people that the Labour Party did not like? Is it the great example of the pot calling the kettle black? That seems to be what it boils down to.

I get very disturbed, and I think that all of us in New Zealand First are very annoyed, that we should have borne all that criticism, and now we are being proved right about the number of people coming into New Zealand, about the pressure that is being placed on the northern and Auckland motorways, about the fact that Auckland is falling further and further behind with its roading problems under this Labour Government, and about the hospitals, the schools, and the like. Despite the fact that the Labour Government is cancelling these applications, it still maintains that it is bringing in 55,000 people, although we know from the figures that that number is really 190,000—and those are not New Zealand First figures; they are the figures of the professors of geography at Waikato University, based on the statistics of the New Zealand Immigration Service.

I remind the Minister of the question she was asked by the television interviewer this evening. As I recall it, she was asked: “You’re bringing this bill in, aren’t you, because of the High Court decision?” And what did she say? I think she said “No”. Mind you, she was so over the top of everybody else that it was hard to hear. But I think she said “No”, and it confirms to me that she said that she did not bring in this legislation because of that decision. It is clear from everyone who has spoken in the House, and who has read page 2 of the explanatory note of the bill, that she misled the television interviewer and the country. If it had happened in the House, I would have expected her to stand up and apologise. But one never holds one’s breath waiting for Labour Party Ministers to do that—that is, if they understood what was actually being said, which is also a difficult thing for them to grasp sometimes.

The explanatory note very clearly states that “following the decision of the High Court in New Zealand Association for Migration and Investments Incorporated v Attorney General (unreported M1700/02), the issue and grant of temporary and limited purpose visas and permits may be required as a matter of Government residence policy.” It says they “may be required as a matter of Government residence policy”. I wish Dr Cullen had read the explanatory note. It is very, very clear that what was being done was a matter of Government policy. The bill ensures—to put it in layman’s terms—that in no circumstances will this Labour Government support a decision by the High Court on the issue and grant of temporary and limited purpose visas. What sort of Governments do we have today when they will allow people to go to court? They contest the case in court, then when they lose—and they are bad losers—they decide that the simplest thing to do is to pass a bill that cancels the court case. All this bill really does is cancel a court case.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about those guys?

And, of course, there is United Future. I thank the member for reminding me—I was so away with my stream of thought. The only party supporting this minority Labour Government and allowing this legislation to go through is United Future. I am pleased to hear that the Greens have principles and will oppose this legislation. I give them full credit for that. I often give them something else, but I give them full credit on this occasion. It is becoming quite common in this House for us to be critical of United Future.

This legislation cancels constitutional rights, and it cancels a High Court decision. This legislation allows this incompetent Minister of Immigration to continue in her office, and it is being supported only by the minority Labour Government, supported by United Future. That is all that is allowing this legislation to continue. It is a disgrace. When I get back and speak to some of those people in the Waitakere and Albany areas—people who might have supported United Future—boy, oh boy, are they going to be even more upset, and the support for United Future will go down the tubes.

New Zealand First wants to make sure that we do not have an overabundance of immigrants to the extent of the 50,000, 60,000, and 190,000 that we have today. This bill does not do anything to stop that. Under this bill, we will still have the same rush of immigrants that we had before. We cannot support that, and we oppose this legislation.