Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This bill does three things. It provides for global prioritisation. We believe that we have the power currently to do this, because we are able to manage the way that we address those applications that come in, but we are not taking any risks. This measure enables the best applications to be dealt with first. I, quite frankly, have been absolutely amazed at the support for the “first come, first served” principle, which would not serve New Zealand well. I want every member in this House to realise that the global prioritisation principle is about ensuring that those who have job offers, who are already needed in New Zealand, have access to residence first.

The second thing that the bill does is that it introduces the lapsing provisions. I am aware that there will be people who are disappointed as a result of that. It was made very clear in the debate that it does not apply to applications lodged after 20 November last year; it does not apply to applicants who have lodged more than 28 points; it does not apply where there is a relevant job offer; it does not apply where the applicants have already been invited to apply for a job-search visa, or one has been granted to them; and it does not apply where all the criteria have been met for approval in principle. So only one component of the group of people who currently have applications in the pipeline will have those applications lapsed. The application fees for those lapsed applications will be refunded in full.

It is no wonder National Party members have got up in this House to defend rights. Actually, it is the first time that I have heard National Party members get up in this Parliament and do that. In the 13 years that I have been here, I have never heard a National Party member get up to defend someone’s rights. What the National Party members are really defending is the fact that they got it wrong. In 1991 the policy got it wrong. The 1998 adjustment, which allowed migrants to get full points for a job offer that was not relevant to their qualifications or experience, was an unmitigated disaster for this country. The National Party, in essence, is defending the National Government’s policy errors; this policy puts them right.

The skilled immigration policy is surely designed to meet the needs of New Zealand. If other parties are willing to sit back and wait for people to apply to come to New Zealand—bringing skills that New Zealand may or may not need—and then to forget about them the moment that they arrive in this country, then so be it. That is not what this Government stands for. This Government is pro-immigration, pro-migrant, pro-settlement, and pro - New Zealand, and that approach produces the best of all worlds. All will benefit from the approach that we have adopted.

National Party members have asked what I have done in the last 3½ years. To quote one of my very good colleagues on this side of the House, I have done “heaps” in the immigration portfolio. I have an entire page of delivery, in terms of our policy, that I could go through, but I just want to mention two points. I said, when I became the Minister, that there were people in the country with residence who could not get work, and there were people in the country with work who could not get residence. I have done everything within my power to address that issue. I have said that the settlement focus has to be the key approach to immigration. That is why we established pilot schemes—to make sure that skilled migrants were matched with skilled opportunities in New Zealand. We brought in the work-to-residence policy, and the talent visa has been hugely successful. This bill is not a knee-jerk reaction; it has been a very long time in the planning.

In the Committee stage I read out the public comments of immigration consultants who do not accept the position of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, and I want to close with some comments from business other than Business New Zealand. This is a statement from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc: “Business has forever said the best way of selecting immigrants suited to New Zealand was for them to show they had a genuine offer of a job from a New Zealand enterprise. The changes announced yesterday move a long way towards delivering this approach, and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) endorses it with enthusiasm. ‘Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel’s approach is fundamentally the right one for business, particularly for manufacturing businesses.’, says Alisdair Thompson, EMA’s Chief Executive. ‘A labour department survey last year showed many of our enterprises are not growing as fast as they could, because of a lack of suitable skills, especially people with trades and vocational skills. Skill shortages were found to be holding back growth for 42 percent of smaller businesses, but the door must be kept open for immigrants bringing capital with them. In addressing the issues, Minister Dalziel has made more progress with the portfolio than any Minister I can remember. While some people may be disadvantaged, the change needed was bound to cause some disruption.’ ”

My point is that there would be more disruption if we do not do this, if we do not get it right for New Zealand.

The Minister of Immigration got only one thing right. This legislation cannot be a knee-jerk reaction; there have been 4 years of incompetent management by that Minister of the immigration portfolio. That is why it has ended up with a backlog that will take 2½ years to process. That is why we have ended up having to rush legislation through Parliament to lapse people who have had their applications in the pool for 2 years, and who are now being told: “Tough luck!”. They will just get their fees refunded; they will not even be compensated for interest lost during that time. That does nothing for the international reputation of New Zealand.

But today has been an eye-opener. It confirms the arrogant approach of the Labour Government. When it makes mistakes it never apologises. I just make that observation. When the Labour Government makes mistakes, it adopts the following actions: it never apologises, it blames everyone in sight, and it rushes legislation through under urgency. It is quite frightening. Even today, I personally have felt the anger of the Minister. If anyone dares to question her actions, she says something like: “Well, Pansy Wong, you just wait and see.” I think, wow, it must be quite frightening for all those immigration consultants and business organisations. Who would dare to write any letters to that Minister of Immigration that point out her faults or mistakes? I presume she treats everybody equally, so she would tell them: “You just wait and see.” She reads out letters of endorsement only. I think the scenario is quite clear: one should never question the Labour Government or cross it; otherwise, one shall pay the price. A very, very threatening environment is created, and it is reinforced by the provisions in this legislation.

Today the legislation is being challenged by the Opposition parties only. I doubt very much whether United Future members have actually read the bill, or whether Labour back-bench members understand what it is all about. The environment that has been created, and that now extends to the Immigration Service, gives absolute power to the chief executive, the Minister, and the visa officers to make rulings. This legislation states that if they get those rulings wrong, they will be treated as correct. I think that, in future, members on this side of the House will have a real problem, because most of us will have a lot of constituents who want to question immigration rulings. We will have to tell them “Tough luck!”, because the legislation was rushed through Parliament, and, in effect, a ruling on the so-called “order and manner of processing” cannot be questioned. Lots of people will have no recourse from that. What has happened to the open and transparent governance that this Labour Government has always claimed to have?

The other eye-opener, for me, anyway, is to know—Labour and United Future would not admit it, but it is true—that the Government has started to study New Zealand First’s immigration policy. Its members have continued to ask New Zealand First members why they do not vote for the legislation, as it is that party’s immigration policy. I find the double standard very confusing. New Zealand First wants to restrict immigration, and this is anti-migrant. Labour and United Future are rushing through this legislation to legislate away the rights of 20,000 people for proper assessment, and to bring down the number of migrants, and they claim that is pro-migrant. What is the difference? Nobody seems to want to take a call and explain. Why do Labour and United Future not stand up and say they have adopted New Zealand First’s immigration policy, and will continue to study its immigration policy? The public, in future, should be very aware of that.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

The passage of this bill further cements a Labour governance style of being heavy-handed; Labour can do no wrong, and the critics had better watch out. Minister Lianne Dalziel demonstrated that by accusing me of somehow being involved with money-laundering immigration scams. The only crime I am guilty of is to question her legislation. It is a day of shame in Parliament when a Minister fails to acknowledge that she is not on top of her portfolio, and resorts to threats to her fellow MPs.

Did she not promise to bring in legislation to regulate immigration consultants who are not behaving according to the way that the law was drafted? Did she not promise to do that? She has failed to do it, and, as a result, some potential migrants have had a raw deal. She did not bring legislation to the House to deal to those immigration consultants. Instead, she is rushing legislation through, under urgency, to deal to over 20,000 innocent migrant applicants who responded to her promotion in various places, in October 2001 I think it was, to encourage people to apply to come to New Zealand. The points required at that stage were 24 or 25; now she is saying that all those applications should lapse.

Global prioritisation—another Labour spin—really means that Chinese, Indians, and Koreans need not apply. Labour is in a glass house, and should not throw stones at New Zealand First, because Labour really agrees with that party’s immigration policy. This global prioritisation means less transparent and objective criteria will apply. It is a recipe for corruption. Immigration consultants and organisations that have the ear of the politicians and officials can in future expect favourable treatment. Under the provisions of this bill, the public and Opposition MPs cannot question, appeal, or seek review. United Future’s part in opening the door to corruption in our country’s immigration system will not be forgotten. “United” they might be, but there will not be much of a “Future”.

The Minister says the New Zealand Immigration Service has the capacity to implement this global prioritisation. Why should we have confidence in that, when it is clear that in the House today, under urgency, provisions are being introduced to clear a backlog of applications that would take the service 2½ years to assess? Under the Labour Government’s so-called new skilled migrants policy there is provision for the service simply to lapse applications when it thinks fit, or to decide without having to explain why, or not to issue a letter of invitation. That provision was introduced just to avoid the Government having to put more resources into making sure the Immigration Service is doing its job properly. This Minister, who has spent 4 years in her portfolio, adopts a defensive mentality. She oversees a backlog of applications made in the past 2 years, then passes legislation under urgency to lapse those innocent people, who responded in good faith to the invitation to apply to come to New Zealand.

United Future is pleased to support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I take issue with Pansy Wong’s comments that United Future would support things that lead to corruption. That would be totally incorrect.

Dear old Winston has his three policies to fix, but now he is going to have to have—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will be referred to by his full name.

I apologise. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, with his three things to fix, will have to place a bandage on one of his fingers, because he obviously hit the finger instead of using this opportunity to bring his policy in and achieve what he had stated.

This bill that we have been dealing with covers two groups of migrants. To start with, the bill aims to prioritise those general skills category applications currently in the system, of which we have heard there are 20,000, representing 46,000 people. As soon as this bill is passed, which will be very shortly—thanks to United Future—those with a job offer relevant to their skills, or with high points, will be prioritised in the immigration queue. The Hon Richard Prebble tried to say that this legislation was introduced because the points system does not work. This bill is not saying the points system does not work, and in fact the new policy will make better use of the points system by providing bonus points for applicants with relevant job offers, particularly in regions with skills shortages.

United Future is free to choose which legislation it supports in this House, and we chose to support this legislation because it is good legislation, because it is good for New Zealand, and because it has been welcomed by New Zealand business, which United Future will always support. Yes, applications currently in the system from those who do not have a relevant job offer or sufficient points will lapse, and their fees will be refunded. This will not affect those who already have a job-search visa or those whose residency 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 these applicants meet the minimum points requirement, only 57 percent in the last year had relevant job offers. Many of those who have applied are already in New Zealand on work permits, or came here to look before they applied. I want again to underline the point that these people will still be free to do this. In fact, their experience in New Zealand would count in their favour should they subsequently receive a job offer and apply for residency. Of the principal applicants approved for residence in 2002-03, 62 percent had previously had a student, work, or visitor permit at some stage.

From 1 July, principal applicants must have a job offer relevant to their skills or qualifications. This is entirely consistent with the intent of the Immigration Amendment Bill 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 get their applications in under the old rules.

Many speakers have already argued about the rapid nature of this change, and the introduction of these bills under urgency. But it must be remembered that the Immigration Amendment Bill has had only its first reading. It will go through the normal select committee process, and there will be further opportunities to debate it in this House. As for the interim bill we are currently debating, given its alignment with the primary bill, United Future believes that the experience over the next few months will greatly inform the select committee about how this shift in policy will work in practice. For example, the 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 residence 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. The number remains at 45,000, with 60 percent set aside for skilled immigrants, and this will continue for the next 3 years. If anything, the approvals process will be much faster than it is now, but the total number will remain stable and predictable. This is totally consistent with United Future’s immigration policy.

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. United Future is very pleased to support this legislation.

The problem with the previous speaker and his party, and the Government that they support, is that they do not understand that the quota numbers of those who come in are to be more liberal from today than they were 2 years ago. Two years ago, the Government announced the same figures, at 45,000, and it had a plus or a minus alongside them. Today there are no minuses; the same criteria are all pluses. The suggestion that things will be tighter is a total misnomer.

The second mistake they make is that they confuse immigration policy with a policy on immigrants. The first one is wise economic and social policy; the second one is how we treat foreigners who come to our country, and there is a world of difference.

The third thing is this. Recently a very, very august group called the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council, in the United States, did a study of immigration into the melting pot called the United States. We have all heard those stories about how good immigration has been for the United States. Who are these people? They are economists, demographers, and sociologists. They are all leading people in their field and hardly anti-immigration. What did they find? On immigration’s effects on wages, the study found that immigration was responsible for 44 percent of the decline in wages that high school dropouts had experienced between 1980 and 1994 in the United States. On immigration’s fiscal impact it found: “Immigration not only affects natives by their presence in the workforce but also affects natives through their consumption of public services. Based on census and other Government survey data, the NRC study concluded that, at the present time, immigrant-headed households consume more in public services than they pay in taxes.”

Those are facts, not stupid, blind, creeping ideology from a Government that cannot run a sound economy, and so it brings in artificial consumer demand, then boasts how it is bringing in 1.3 percent of our gross domestic product in terms of growth. According to the Government, if it were not for immigrants, we would be going through a serious depression at the moment! I can see why the Minister is saying that, but there never was a Labour Party in the past that would have supported that sort of nonsense.

On cost versus benefits, the study stated—these are not my words—“We can now say with some confidence that immigration is not the benefit to the economy that it was once thought to be. While the overall economic impact of immigration is modest, the effect on the unskilled and on taxpayers in high immigration states is substantial. We should therefore change our immigration policy, not because the negative effects are so large for the country as a whole, but because they are so concentrated.” For that, read New Zealand. Members should go to Auckland and look at the huge demand on health services alone, in just one segment. Ten years ago, there were 10 interpreters working for the Auckland health service. Today there are not 10 but 285. Once, 10 years ago, we had a road service in Auckland that could see a person get from the airport to the centre of town in 20 minutes. Now, it takes an hour at the worst times of the day, and it is getting worse by the hour.

Members should look at legal aid services and accident compensation costs. Over there sit the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Finance, and they cannot quantify anything but their feel-good feeling. All of a sudden, because the polls say that less than 16 percent support them on this issue and a massive 82-plus percent do not, but support New Zealand First on the issue, they are panicking and have this knee-jerk reaction. What did Gareth Morgan say? He is hardly a supporter of Winston Peters or New Zealand First. He said in November 2002 that if these trends are maintained—and the policy we have been debating yesterday and today will maintain them—it could take as few as 60 years before the population is effectively totally renewed.

Those who thought they were coming to a country with a British-Māori background, with shared cultures and traditions that we have built up for the last 140 years, should forget it. These people are about colonising New Zealand from without with, in the main, people who do not want to speak the language, do not share our system of laws, and do not share our cultures. Today, there are 300,000 people in New Zealand who cannot speak English.

💬 Edwin Perry: Labour voters.

Yes. It is about social engineering. Mr Morgan went on to say: “Mr Peters is quite justified to point out New Zealand is looking at a social and demographic revolution.” Who gave Labour the mandate? No one. Who supports Lianne Dalziel? Nobody. Who supports the policy?

💬 Government Members: Everyone.

I am talking about sane, rational people, I say to Mr Swain. I have not included him in it. What sane, rational, informed person supports this policy? Nobody but the “United League of Joyboys”, who have no idea how to exercise power, and a gentleman over there from Dunedin, who has been promoted way above his station.

When the Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel, was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee this year, she was asked by my colleague whether she was aware of a study prepared by Waikato University. It is fascinating stuff: “Jones: Do you accept that, in total, 190,000, including international students, were approved for permanent and temporary residence for the year ended 30 June 2002? Dalziel: How much? Jones: 190,000. Dalziel: No.” There is an old saying that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. She starts not even knowing the basic figures. He says again: “Do you accept that 73,800 of that figure were covered by student visas and work permits?” She says—pretty typically, I might add—“I have no idea what you’re talking about.” Mr Jones says: “Can I draw your attention to a well-established report?”, and she says that she does not know about it. He refers to Dr Richard Bedford, Professor of Geography and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) of Waikato University, and Dalziel says, by way of a question: “And he says they were granted permanent residence?”. Members should remember what she was asked. She began by saying that she was not aware of that study, but, pages later, we finally get to it. She is asked again: “Are you now aware of it? Dalziel: Permanent residence and temporary entry? Yes.”

This is no small matter. They are cancelling the applications of tens of thousands of people. There has been no consultation with anybody, no select committee hearing. This is to be rammed through Parliament in the space of under 24 hours. I say to the people up in the gallery that this was once a country with a grand tradition for honouring the law and for respecting people’s rights. It distinguished us from those dictatorships and autocracies that the world once passed away from, but, today, here is the Labour Party denying people fundamental rights, denying them the fruits of a court case, by retrospectively changing the law.

I want to say one last thing on this bill. They laugh now, but we have seen the first of three things that we will fix up. It will take us all the way to the next election, and on election night 2005 we will have fixed up them, and the issue, as well.

Let me, first of all, deal with one simple issue. Mr Peters now defines as temporary residents of New Zealand everybody who comes here as a tourist, everybody who comes here as a short-term—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no.

Oh yes, yes. The figure of 190,000 actually includes all those people. It is not the number of people coming into New Zealand for permanent residency. He has everybody frightened about all these numbers of people who happen to be employing large numbers of New Zealanders in hotels and goodness knows what else, up and down the country.

But let us deal with his basic approach. If the rules that he would love to see had applied in this country for the last 160 years, he would not be half the man he is now. Of course, he is only half the man of anyone else in this Parliament, except his own members, anyway.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that comment.

I withdraw the second part. The first part is undeniably true. If those rules had applied since 1840, he would be half the man he is now. If the original inhabitants of this country had decided that nobody of a different colour, ethnicity, or culture from those already here was going to come into the country, he would not be trying to pretend he can put on a kilt on occasions during the year and be half-Scottish. And he would finally have to teach himself Māori for the first time in his life.

Of course, if those rules had been applied by whoever was not here in the first place, before Māori arrived, there would be nobody here. By the logic he has just applied, this economy would be booming without a single person in the country. And if no Europeans had ever been let in, we would have the highest non-literate, non - wheel using economy in the world, because that is the economy that existed before Europeans arrived in New Zealand. And if migrants had never been allowed into the United States, the various Amerindians, the early first peoples of the United States, would, presumably, now be an even more dominant economy in the world than the United States is at the present time.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification on this matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am getting to it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: First of all, there was the repeated allegation, which I did not take umbrage at, about someone who was only half a man. The member then depicted Māori society as non-literate and non - wheel using. I want to make this point: when the member was crawling around the slums of Liverpool, we had a degree of civilisation beyond his wildest dreams.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that is out of order, and he will cease immediately.

If I had been crawling around the slums of Liverpool, I would have a far better football team to support than the one I do happen to support, which is a North London football team.

I repeat: if he really believes that a society of our sort would have been better off without immigration, what on earth is he trying to argue? Who seriously believes that in New Zealand these days? What he tells us is that migrants change the nature of a country. Well, that is a real piece of news to discover in the 21st century! Is that a rule we could apply to England in 1066? He would not have tried to fight at the Battle of Hastings; instead, he would have said: “Sorry, you are prohibited immigrants. We don’t want to change our society. Throw away your bows and arrows, boys; you’re banned from coming in.” That would be the kind of approach Mr Peters would have taken.

Looking around at the motley mob that makes up New Zealand First, I say it is about time that we started celebrating diversity in this society, and treasuring even those who do not contribute. I mean, who has ever heard a member of New Zealand First, other than Mr Mark, add anything to Parliament since those members got in here? I assume they are representing the entire population that cannot speak and cannot hear, within this particular Parliament.

I want to come to the issue of the rule of law. Every party over there has been pouring sweat for the last week, saying this Government should legislate yesterday—not even tomorrow—to overturn a unanimous Court of Appeal decision to remove property rights. There is a sudden silence now. They are thinking: “When did we say that? What were we talking about?”. Recently, there was a unanimous Court of Appeal decision that said that the indigenous people of this country can apply for recognition of their property rights, and those parties said we should legislate to remove those property rights, and overturn a unanimous Court of Appeal decision. Yes, those parties did say that, including those members over on that side who might potentially be beneficiaries of that decision, if I recognise ethnicity correctly. That degree of self-hatred is remarkable.

Of course, what we say is that we should legislate to recognise the rights of the rest of us as well, which is slightly different, so that half of Mr Peters can go to the beach, and half of Mr Peters can have some customary rights derived from his ancestry. He can get on to the beach, probably at about 3 a.m., because I understand that is his normal beach-visiting time, and go fly-fishing—if he can work out by then, in his usual state at 3 a.m., which way round the sea is, and which direction to point in.

Let us come back to this issue. Faced with a decision by one judge that says the current law is not sufficient to implement the Government’s policy—and that is the implication of the decision—Parliament, as the sovereign body, as the highest court in the land, has the right, which it has asserted time after time, and every tax Act is littered with legislation of this sort, to say: “No, we will stick to the policy, and change the law to fit the policy.” Mr Peters suddenly decides he wants to oppose a bill that does that, and that would actually help his general approach in life; he would rather oppose that policy in order that he can grandstand and say that everybody who is an immigrant is sucking off the body politic of New Zealand, and is contributing nothing to this country—nothing like as much as Mr Paraone, who has been silent on the foreshore and seabed issue; nothing like as much as Mr Perry, who has been silent on the foreshore and seabed issue; and nothing like as much as Mr Gudgeon, who has been silent on the foreshore and seabed issue.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will now come back to the bill.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has been allowed to carry on about a whole lot of extraneous matters that are on the parliamentary Order Paper but do not relate to this bill, and he should be told to get back to it or shut up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say to the member that I have been listening to a large number of comments about a bill that we have already passed and sent off to a select committee. This bill is a relatively narrow bill, and some members, like his bench mate, have been sticking closely to it, and do know how to do that. A lot of other people in this debate have not, and the member knows that.

This bill should be passed for one clear reason now established in this debate, and that is to assert clearly that this Parliament is sovereign and judges do not make the law. This Parliament makes the law, not one judge. I say to some members opposite who are rather new and naive in these matters that if we allow, every time a judge makes a decision, that the law is not adequate to implement policy, then we will quickly find not a great deal of policy remaining in place. Secondly, this bill is necessary to avoid administrative confusion and chaos while the first bill goes through the select committee. Finally, this bill helps establish that people will get priority access into New Zealand on the basis of the skills that we want in New Zealand, and nobody opposite seems able to find anything wrong with that particular position. Even Mr Simon Carlaw, who is paid to whinge—that is what he draws his salary to do—has actually said this legislation is good.

That was a very revealing speech, in many aspects, and I will come to some of those. ACT New Zealand certainly supports planned, orderly migration, and we celebrate diversity in this country—that is basic ACT policy. We do not share the somewhat xenophobic views of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think the comments that the Leader of the House has just made really highlight a number of issues. He made the comment that half of Mr Peters can enjoy his customary rights, while the other half can eat his haggis and blow his bagpipes. But that really hits the very nerve of the foreshore and seabed debate, which the Leader of the House introduced. We recognise diversity, but say there should be one law for all. We are all New Zealanders, and there should be a single sovereignty.

No other Government in history has talked about dual sovereignty to the extent that this Government has, running the notion that we will somehow have separate and different rights according to the particular date when one of our ancestors may have arrived here. The reality is that every person in this country is either a migrant or a descendant of a migrant. We can argue about how many generations one might have to go back, but one would only have to go back 30 generations to reach the first settlers in this country, and that is nothing in global terms. We are all migrants or descendants of migrants, and there should therefore be one law for all. We should not have the race-based laws that this Government is constantly bringing to this Parliament. The Leader of the House tripped himself up in quite an extraordinary way in the speech he just gave.

However, the real concern with regard to this bill is with the process that has been adopted. This is a panic bill that has been brought to the House as a knee-jerk reaction under urgency, something that has become the trademark of this Government. Every time that this Government thinks it has a little problem, in the wee small hours of the evening it has a panic situation, quickly drafts out legislation, brings it to the House, and tries to rush it through under urgency, with no select committee consideration, no submissions, and not even any consultation. The Minister sat in the chair during the Committee stage, and was proud of the fact that there was no consultation with those who understand this issue best. That is a very arrogant way to bring about legislative change. It always ends in tears, because, inevitably, people get it wrong.

We know—the Minister admitted this—that the Minister first gave drafting instructions for this bill on 23 June. That was only 6 working days ago, which emphasises what a rushed job and knee-jerk reaction this bill is.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Stop misleading the House.

I am just repeating to the House what she told us in the Committee stage. It is in Hansard, and we can go back to Hansard. The Minister came scurrying back down to the House when we challenged her, and said that only part of it was drafted post-23 June, trying to cover herself. However, that was what she told us in the Committee stage.

There are real concerns here with regard to the retrospective consequences of this legislation. We know what drove the Minister: the immigration consultants took legal action against her. They went to court, and won. When she lost, she put out an announcement that she would appeal. She then thought that rather than go through the courts, she would use her power to legislate and close down the options. In doing so, there is a retrospective impact on some 20,000 applicants, which we are led to believe affects some 46,000 people, all of whom had legitimate expectations. Their expectations are being dashed by this Minister, in her hasty knee-jerk reaction to this issue.

We do want orderly migration. I would not suggest for a moment that the law as it stands is perfect. It is not. The law is in dire need of some reform, but I am not satisfied that the Minister is going about it in the right way. Amending the law in indecent haste, as she is, is certainly not the way to attack that issue.

I am also very concerned about the so-called loading for regional locality. People will somehow be given a special priority if they are prepared to live in Invercargill, Gore, Timaru, or somewhere other than Auckland. We know those sorts of policies do not work; they never work. Families might start off in those places, but if it is their wont, within 3 or 6 months they will be in Auckland. Do members remember the very large numbers of Vietnamese refugees who came to this country—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As the Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out, this debate has been too wide. It must come back to this particular bill. I know that reference can be made to the bill that we have already sent off to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but only reference to it. The member cannot make most of his speech on it.

The point I was making was that the core part of this bill gives a loading according to the proposed location of a potential migrant.

💬 Darren Hughes: The other bill did that!

There is an implication of that in this bill, and that is my point. The effect of that will the same, in terms of what it is replacing, as the effect of the old points system. Be that as it may, the point I make is that most of the Vietnamese and Cambodian migrants who came to this country have since moved on to Sydney or Melbourne. That is the reality, and that is why the earlier bill that this Government brought in today was as equally bad and faulty as this bill.

Part 2 is the real concern. That concerns the validation of the processing of applications. We see there that any past mistakes, order, or processing of an application that has been messed up, done wrong, or lacks justice is deemed to be valid. Just with the stroke of a pen, clause 5(1)(a) deems it to be valid. However, the situation becomes worse than that, because in clause 5(b) no appeal rights are granted. People cannot appeal, and there is no review process. Any mistakes that the bureaucrats make are deemed to be valid. That is not good legislation. This Minister comes here to the House puffing herself up, crowing what a wonderful job she is doing, and singing her own praises. She has a standard letter that she always brings to the House, and reads out to us time and time again.

💬 Ron Mark: She told us we were wrong in the election.

That is right. She always gets it wrong. Those provisions are of deep concern, as well as the first part of the bill. In common law people can bring a writ of mandamus. Where bureaucrats are not following due process or doing their job, and are sitting on their hands or dragging their feet, citizens have the right to bring to the courts a writ of mandamus.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: They’re not citizens; they’re not even in the country.

Not the way this bill reads! It states that any past mistakes or inactions are deemed to be valid—no appeal, and no right of review.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: There will be one day.

There will be one day. When there is a change of Government there will be, and that is not too far away. I would be prepared to place a bet with any member on the Government side of the House on that one. There are no takers on that, at all.

This is bad legislation. ACT, along with other Opposition parties, will oppose it.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Good news!

The Minister thinks that it is good news?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I think it is good news that the member has just shown how ridiculous the position of the ACT party is.

Not at all! We support good immigration policy. I said at the outset that we support that. This is not good immigration policy. This is a knee-jerk reaction. The Minister panicked 6 days ago, fired out instructions to the bureaucrats to prepare a draft bill, and brought it to the House under urgency, with no select committee consideration and no public submissions. If she truly has confidence in this legislation, why did she not invite public submissions? Why did she not let it go to a select committee? She has not answered those questions. The bill stands condemned by the Minister’s own actions.

That was a most extraordinary speech from the low-polling ACT party. First of all, we found out that the ACT party research unit must be down Lambton Quay somewhere, sipping latte away from the Pipitea Street electorate office. Mr Shirley, the deputy leader of the ACT party, spoke to the wrong bill. At the beginning of the debate on the two immigration bills, he said that the ACT party supported the policy intent. During that speech he said that if ACT got into Government, it would reverse the bill. That shows why that member went from being No. 2 on the ACT list to No. 6, and he is falling so fast that he will be applying for immigration status for another country after the next election.

The contribution made by Mr Shirley summed up exactly the Opposition’s approach to this bill. It has not spoken to the issues that have been addressed by the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We are desperate to make sure that when migrants come to our country, they settle well. We are desperate to make sure that we can match up the skills people have with the needs that we have in our country, so that we make a contribution for the migrant and for New Zealanders. This bill is about making sure that we get proper, robust immigration policy. I congratulate the Hon Lianne Dalziel on her leadership with regard to this bill. It shows why she is right, and the Opposition is wrong.

The Greens are completely opposed to this bill. None of our concerns have been dealt with at all in the explanations from the Minister or the Government members. We have two main issues: firstly, the extraordinary level of discretionary power given to immigration officials, and, secondly, the retrospective stripping of a just process from the applicants.

This bill gives the Immigration Service an extraordinary level of discretion, which is way beyond what is needed to fulfil its requirements. The Immigration Service has total discretion over the order and manner of processing applications. That process can change at any time by general instructions given by the chief executive, and, in addition, immigration officials are entitled to follow those instructions but cannot be held to account if they do not follow them. It is entirely inappropriate for a level of discretion such as that to reside in an officer, and for the criteria that govern how applications are to be dealt with to be determined entirely in-house, with no oversight or review by the public. Such a level of individual control over the application of the criteria is unjustifiable, and there has been no explanation at all as to why Immigration Service officers should have such a level of discretion.

I have been told previously by officials that the reason that much of the immigration process and policy is done through departmental policy, rather than through legislation or regulation, is that it has always been done that way. That is not an acceptable process in a democratic society such as ours. That is not the way that such a serious and important question as immigration should be determined. Immigration has an enormous impact, first, on the tangata whenua of this country, and, second, on the whole of the New Zealand public. It should not be determined outside of public scrutiny, and with no consultation or public discussion.

To compound the problem of the extraordinary level of discretion is the fact that there is absolutely no opportunity to appeal the use of that power. No applicant is able to hold an immigration officer to account for failing to apply the criteria as he or she had been instructed to do. Officers are not legally required to process applications in any particular manner or order, whether or not that process is consistent with the general instructions given by the chief executive. That means an officer can process an application in accordance with the general instructions or not do so, entirely at his or her own discretion, and there is no means to object to that. There is no control at all in the legislation on the potential use or abuse of those powers.

By their very nature, immigration applicants are in a very vulnerable position, especially if they are from developing countries where English is not necessarily the first language, or are in circumstances that create an environment of urgency for them. In the light of the imbalance in the power relationship between applicants and immigration officers respectively, it is only just that applicants should not be subjected to an unfettered individual discretion over the application of rules that can change mid-application, and without notice. Those circumstances open up the service to very real allegations of corrupt and discriminatory actions. We would have thought that there would at least be protections in the bill to avoid the possibility of such allegations, if only to protect the immigration officials themselves. But there is no such protection, either for the department or for the applicants. That is untenable and unjust.

We also object to the automatic lapsing of existing applications, notwithstanding the option for applicants to reapply. That is not the way to deal with the backlog of applications or, more importantly, with the people and the families who are applicants. Those people have, in good faith, met the obligations of the Government immigration policy, paid their money, and are now arbitrarily deprived of a due process. That provision is not necessary. Those people should not be punished for mistakes made by the Government in the allocation of resources to the Immigration Service. We support the principle that applications should be dealt with under the provisions that applied at the time an application was made. In order to prevent the huge rush of applications that occurs when any new policy on immigration is announced, the legislation should have simply stated that the new process applied to any application lodged as of 1 July 2003. That would have ensured that those already in the system were dealt with fairly, while being clear and fair to those who lodge new applications. The Minister intends to refund application fees of about $9 million. That money would be much better spent on dealing with the backlog of applications in a fair and just way.

It is with a great deal of frustration and exasperation that we remind the Government, once again, that it has made a very significant decision without any consultation or discussion with Māori over the issue. Immigration is a fundamental issue of sovereignty and decision making. The Government asserts its right to determine immigration issues as part of the sovereignty it claims through the Treaty of Waitangi and the establishment of the Government. But the treaty was between two parties, and immigration is, and remains, a treaty issue. It may even be described as the first treaty issue, being the process by which new people come to this country. But again, the interests of Māori have been ignored and undermined. I note also that the whole of the New Zealand public, Māori and non-Māori, have been excluded from the process. I want simply to bring to the attention of the public that Māori have suffered such a level of disregard at all levels in virtually all matters in the legislative process.

Immigration policies should be based on the Government’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and on the social and economic needs of the country, addressed in such a way as not to compromise ecological sustainability and the protection of our natural heritage. Such a policy must also be just and transparent, and not merely a means by which to select the elite from other countries. If the Government truly had confidence in this new policy and process, it would not be using the urgency process to push it through. Also, the details of the process would be clear and transparent in the legislation, the powers of officers would be explicitly prescribed, and there would be a right of appeal, in order to protect the human rights of those in the process. Clearly the Government does not have confidence in this legislation, and neither should the New Zealand public.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of this legislation, and I would like to compliment my colleague Lianne Dalziel for the effort and the vision that goes into such a necessary policy change. I think most New Zealanders welcome the sensible prioritisation in relation to the needs of this country of the many thousands of people who are keen to come to it. It is a sad comment also on the attitudes and the personnel involved in the tired old Opposition parties that debates like this become yet another excuse to scratch the sore of bigotry and prejudice. I cannot imagine a better illustration of that than the comments the leader of the New Zealand First Party made just recently.

Like a lot of New Zealanders, I watched a rugby match on Saturday evening. I was substantially moved by the incredible image of Deborah Wai Kapohe singing first “La Marseillaise”, followed by the New Zealand national song. I cannot imagine a better statement of what this country stands for than that which the NZRFU provided us with on Saturday night. I regret that so many members of this House cannot take the opportunity to celebrate what this country represents, in terms of its ethnic diversity. They should get on with the job, and leave their tired old bigotry and prejudice at home.

The Minister would have us believe that this is a relatively minor bill that is being passed under urgency to facilitate a wider package of immigration changes that for some unknown reason were announced late yesterday afternoon. Significant changes are contained in the other bill, which I make only passing reference to, as I know the Standing Orders permit, but the relationship between these two bills is important, and there has been some dispute, it is fair to say, about that matter.

The Government says it is moving away from a system that is based on points, solely, to one that will see New Zealand’s labour market needs met by way of immigration. That is a significant shift. It takes us back to a policy that we have seen before in this country, which relies heavily on the ability of Ministers and officials to understand what is happening in the marketplace. I have grave concerns, although I will approach that matter, which is now before a select committee, with an open mind.

In relation to this measure I say that it has been completely misrepresented to the House by the Minister who has presented it. This bill has nothing to do with a meaningful reform of the immigration system in this country. It has everything to do with saving the political backside of a Minister and some officials who did not see some inevitable consequences, who did not make some decisions that they should have made, and who are finally now asking this Parliament, under cover of urgency, to tidy up what they know they can tidy up no other way.

To recount the history of this matter—and it has been adverted to on more than one occasion in the Committee stage—this bill really has its origins in the fact that the Minister of Immigration and the Government that has been in place for 4 long years did nothing to confront significant changes in relation to the immigration market. They did nothing to fine-tune by way of the annual plan, or any other measure, the points system in a significant way, or make any other significant adjustments that would have avoided some of the problems that have now occurred. Because the problem became large and because the number of applications was substantial, and because the political heat came on to the Minister, the Government decided to do something, and it panicked. In a sheer act of panic we saw some changes made that touched the implementation of the English language test.

Those changes were challenged by a group in the High Court of New Zealand. The High Court, in the form of Justice Randerson, found in a judgment issued on 16 May this year that the Minister had no lawful base for making some of the decisions she encouraged the Government to make. That was a pivotal time for the Minister. Dr Cullen made a fair point when he said that this Parliament should not surrender to the courts the ability to make policy decisions. So when faced with that decision by the High Court, the Minister had an opportunity to come back to the Parliament and say: “Look, this Act of Parliament, which was promoted by the previous Government and supported by most major parties in this Government, does not do what the legislature thought it was doing when it passed the bill. I am asking the political parties assembled here to give some thought to putting in place in black and white the law as we thought the law to be at the time.”

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: And you would have agreed.

I would have given that very serious consideration. Quite frankly, I accept Dr Cullen’s point. This Parliament should not surrender to the courts the ability effectively to make the law.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You don’t even know what the decision says.

I have read the decision. I have it right here. The Minister should know that my reading of the decision was completely different from hers. I never thought that she had a hope in hell of getting the Court of Appeal to turn over that judgment. I never thought for a minute that she would succeed in the Court of Appeal, so it was with some surprise that I saw the press release dated 17 June in which the Minister of Immigration said that she was off to the Court of Appeal. Having had the judgment of Justice Randerson from 16 May to 17 June, the Minister did not approach the Opposition parties to say: “Hey, let’s make the law do what we all thought the law was going to do when we passed it.” No, she said that the High Court was wrong, that she was off to the Court of Appeal, and here is the press release dated 17 June. I thought that the Minister was wrong then. The Minister now thinks the Minister was wrong. Barely 2 weeks later the Minister is in this Parliament promoting a bill through all its stages under urgency asking us to do what the High Court would not do on 16 May, and what she now knows the Court of Appeal would not do after she had taken the appeal that she said on 17 June she was going to take to the Court of Appeal.

I want the Minister to answer a question that I have asked numerous times and that she should have answered. What did she think was happening in relation to this bill when she put out that press release and gave media briefings on 17 June? To any reasonable observer, that press release and the media comments she provided would suggest that the Government was fully confident that the law stated what the Minister thought it stated and she was very happy to go down the appeal process. I find it difficult to accept that on 17 June the Minister had not turned her mind to the very real probability that she would have this No. 2 bill come to the House and go through all stages, and that she had not turned her mind to the possibility that this bill might contain the provisions that effectively override Justice Randerson’s decision. If the Minister did have those matters in her mind, anybody who believed what she said in that press release, or in her media briefing, would be entitled to feel totally misled.

I simply say that this bill is all about saving the Minister’s backside. In the course of doing so, it is prejudicing the interests of a large number of people who will now feel that they have been dealt with dishonourably by the New Zealand Government. The issue is not whether they are all people who should have residence in New Zealand, the question is whether those people who are entitled to deal with the New Zealand Government and make such an application can expect to be dealt with in a reasonable, predictable, and fair manner. I am concerned that the more widespread signal sent by the way in which the Government has dealt with this legislation is that the best migrants in the world who have a full menu of choices available will say that New Zealand is just too hard and too complicated, and that one might apply on one basis and be dealt with under some completely different basis.

In conclusion, I am pleased that those matters have moved not just the National Party, but the ACT party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Greens in a united way. They have kicked the tyres on the detail of the bill, asked the questions, and, having found the Minister’s explanations thoroughly unconvincing, I hope that they will all decide to oppose it at this third reading stage. I also have to say that the United Future party, which seems happy to do any old deal any old day to keep the Government happy, promised fairness in its policy and preached the need for consistency in dealing with those matters. United Future members should now hang their heads in shame, because they have participated in a truly shabby exercise in this Parliament. This bill deserves to be tested by the Parliament properly on the way through. I thank all the Opposition parties for the way in which they have gone about that process.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I begin by acknowledging the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the courage and commitment it has taken for this particular Minister to step up to the mark and deal with the vexed issues of immigration in this country. What she has put out there for us to consider, and which has been debated over the past hours, has been controversial in the arguments that have been put from across the House. Suffice to say that this bill will bring greater clarity, and certainty I might add, to migrants coming to New Zealand hoping that their skills and the intelligence that they bring to share with this nation are matched more certainly towards job opportunities in skills shortage areas we have in this country. That is at least one provision in this particular legislation that is good for New Zealanders and good for migrants who are coming here. I conclude by saying again that compliments and credit should be given to this Minister for facing the tough issues.

It is very evident that the preceding Labour member has not read this bill, because the very point she referred to is not contained in this bill. It may be contained in the bill that has been referred to the select committee, but it is not in this bill. New Zealand First, as the party that has long supported the immigration to New Zealand of skilled immigrants, will be looking closely at that bill. However, the question of skilled immigrants coming to New Zealand is not the issue in this bill. This bill contains other issues altogether. It seems to me very clear that most Labour members have not understood this bill. There is some spin in the explanatory note that confused me for some considerable time until I went through this bill line by line. The statement there is, and I quote: “Global prioritisation will enable residence applicants with, for example, high contribution and settlement potential to be given early consideration.”, etc., etc. Really, nothing in this bill talks about that. That might be in the bill that has gone to the select committee, but I suggest that it is not in this bill, and New Zealand First will be looking very closely at that other one.

Part 1 of this particular bill has an extraordinary clause that is almost meaningless; it is so wide and so broad that it shows how the Minister has failed in her job in 4 years or so as Minister of Immigration. Imagine any other Minister in any other Government coming to this Parliament and admitting that after all the time she had been in office her decisions had been overturned by the High Court, and then having the temerity to bring a bill into this Parliament to overturn that decision in less than 24 hours! We have been debating this bill for less than 24 hours now, and in less than 24 hours this minority Labour Government will overturn a High Court decision that, one would assume, the Government was willing to abide by in the first place, which is why it went there; but the Government having—not surprisingly—lost the case, we now hear from the Minister in the Committee stage that clause 3 seems to be the clause that will overturn the legislation.

When one reads section 13B(1A) inserted by clause 3, it states: “To avoid doubt, any policy of the Government that relates to the issuing of any type of temporary visa or limited purpose visa or the granting of any type of temporary permit or limited purpose permit is not Government residence policy, regardless of whether the issuing of the visa or the granting of the permit may affect eligibility for or otherwise relate to the issuing of a residence visa or the granting of a residence permit.” What is meant by—“To avoid doubt, any policy of the Government”, etc? What the Government is virtually trying to say is that anything it has said that is Government policy is Government policy, even though it may be wrong, even though it may not have the support of the court. It seems to me that, to give effect to this clause, the Government will have to take one more step somewhere in the executive area to say just what is meant by new subsection (1A) in clause 3, otherwise we will be back to court again to find out just what that amendment to section 13B of the Act actually means.

Essentially, it means that the rule of law does not apply for this minority Labour Government. It will arbitrarily overturn the decision of a court. That is what the rule of law is all about—for Governments not to act arbitrarily. There could be nothing more arbitrary than the way in which this Government has acted in this legislation. It should be ashamed of itself.

I turn to clause 4 about the chief executive giving general instructions as to the order and manner of processing applications for visas and permits—nothing to do with globalisation that I can fully understand. Clause 4 will allow the order and manner to be determined at the direction of a visa officer or immigration officer. So our office in Delhi can decide. Some official there—a visa officer or an immigration officer in Delhi—can decide who, on its priority list, comes to New Zealand. If it has 5,000 applications in Delhi, applications going back for 12 months, that visa officer could decide to put the one that has just been received, to the top of the pile, or the one that was received a month ago, to the top of the pile. Do members not think that that would be a bit suspicious? Do they not think that in a place like Delhi suspicion will be cast on the way in which a visa got to the top of the pile, or moved its way up the ladder? We all know how corrupt that part of the world is.

What about Teheran? What would happen there in moving a visa application up to the top of the pile? We know, for example, and New Zealand First has made this point time and time again, that the best way to get a visa in New Delhi is to see the chap under the tree outside the New Zealand High Commission—a few appropriate rupees, and the visa is yours. We have given many examples of that to the Government, as to how in New Delhi that is the best way, the quickest way, to get a visa to come to New Zealand.

This Government is going to allow immigration officials all around the Pacific, the Philippines, and suchlike—offices where we have had problems in the past—to be encouraged to adopt this process.

I move on in a complementary sort of way to clause 5, “Past order and manner of processing applications deemed valid”. It states that any failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer is deemed to have been validly done. Even if the officer issues a visa that is contrary to all Government policy, even if the process is finalised and the person comes to New Zealand under that sort of basis, it is deemed to be validly done. The Minister cannot overturn it, the authority cannot overturn it, the tribunal cannot overturn it, the court cannot overturn it. In fact, by looking at this, one could say that any terrorist who wanted to come to New Zealand from Afghanistan or from Iraq could, if the person could get the cooperation of the visa clerk at Delhi or Teheran, get into New Zealand and be here validly, as a result of this legislation.

I suspect that Government members do not understand this legislation. The last time we had a case like this was with the port and sherry tax, and when that bill was introduced into the House we were told that that tax was aimed at the young drinker—the person who drinks all these fancy drinks. We were told they were 15-plus percent and suchlike. It turned out that the young drinker drank alcohol that was closer to 5 percent, and was not affected by the tax, which is for fortified drinks over 14 percent. In fact, the elderly drinker who has the occasional port and sherry was hit by that tax. It was only after we had spent a considerable—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.

—amount of time deliberating on it, that we discovered that mistake. That is just a comparison. Just as the Government was totally at sea on that one, so on this issue the Government is totally at sea. It does not seem to realise what it is it has done under this bill. It is leaving it wide open for people to come into New Zealand under this sort of regime whereby the local visa officer, the local immigration officer, can make the permit available, and there is no appeal from that decision, because this legislation says so. I suspect that it will not be terribly long before this legislation is back before the House again to be amended.

I will not say much about clause 6; that has been covered a lot with regard to speeches from other members of the House, and the Court of Appeal decision. But as far as New Zealand First is concerned, this bill does nothing to bring skilled immigrants into this country. All this bill does, as I have said, is overturn a court decision, and somehow give visa officers extraordinary powers—powers that are then validated by this legislation itself.

There is the issue of, for example, the matter raised in the Dominion Post today about people being able to come into New Zealand based on changes of policy, and suchlike. The article stated that the changes could also benefit foreign tertiary students, including many from China, and the Minister had indicated they would get priority, especially if they had a job offer. As I see it, that applies to the other bill that is before the select committee; and obviously Parliament will see how that works.

This is a very, very sad day for parliamentary democracy in New Zealand. It is a day on which the Minister of Immigration has been shown up as an absolute failure. In any reasonable Government in any British Westminster system she would have resigned. We are seeing a situation whereby, in less than 24 hours, the “fastest legislator in the West” once again—that is the title of this Parliament—is trying to rectify the failure of the Government, the failure of the Minister, and is leaving the door wide open, in my view, to corruption and also to allowing terrorists and other undesirable people to come to New Zealand.