Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

The title of this bill is the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), and we have raised many times in the past the fact that contemporary legislation requires the title to be more transparent and informative. I suggest that variations of that title that would be a lot more informative to the public would be titles like the “Immigration (Government Shuts Door on Migrants) Bill” or the “Immigration (Rejection of Application Without Transparent Reasons) Bill.

It is, indeed, quite disturbing to be debating this legislation, under urgency, under a very uninformative title. The Government’s spin is that the reason for introducing the legislation under urgency is that it could have led to a major increase in applications. In this case, that reason is extremely weak because the legislation could be introduced with a time line, and certainly would not lead to a flood of applications. On the contrary, it actually allows the Minister of Immigration and the department very wide-ranging powers. In this case, about 10,000 applications will be dropped because the Minister has simply said that those applicants would not contribute to New Zealand. If that is the case, I wonder why their applications were accepted in the first place.

I think that the Minister should take a call and tell us why she did not have a more transparent title for this legislation that would tell the public that this particular bill is an “Immigration (Close the Door) Bill”. Or it could be an Immigration (Legislating Away the Fruits of Victory) Bill”, because the second part of the legislation is to do with the lack of confidence of the Minister to win an appeal case against the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investments.

In the case of this bill, when people look at the title they might think that it is just a technical amendment, because some Labour Party members have stood up and said that it was a good bill consisting of technical amendments. I reckon that the Minister should take a call to explain that the bill goes a lot further than consisting of just technical amendments. She should take some time in explaining not just to the Opposition but to her own caucus that this little bill goes a lot further than that. It empowers the Minister and the department to lapse applications without having to give those applicants very, very good reasons for their applications not being processed any further. Why have those applicants, apart from receiving refunds, had to wait for 2 years just to have this change suddenly hoisted upon them?

This title certainly does this bill no justice. It is a bill that has far-reaching and wide-ranging implications. It will impact negatively on New Zealand’s status internationally whereby applicants, who have waited for 2 years and who have no idea that their applications will not be paid due consideration, under the guise of this bill being passed in urgency, will now receive letters from the Immigration Service that do not give them very good reasons for their applications not proceeding further.

This bill’s title should not read the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), but the “Lianne Dalziel (How I Stuffed Up on Immigration) Bill”, the “How to Climb Down from an Immigration High Horse Gracefully Bill”, or the “I Don’t Know What I am Doing but I Like the Baubles of Office Bill”.

If members look at paragraph 94 of the court case they will see that the judge said: “A theme of the Minister’s submission was that the job-search visa might not be granted, and that, in any event, the Minister had a discretion as to whether or not it should be granted. It was also submitted that even if the job-search visa were granted, a relevant job offer might not be obtained. All this”—said the judge—“is beside the point. The plaintiff seeks only that general skills applicants should have the opportunity to apply for job-search visas under policy existing at the time of their residence application, whether or not the application is ultimately successful.” There it is, in a nutshell. The Minister got it wrong, but not just in a small way, she got it wrong for tens of thousands of people who had a right, through their immigration agents, to bring their case.

So what does she do? She sets out to damn immigration agents—all of whom she has empowered, of course—and then she says something else which she knows nothing about. She says these people are all overseas. She does not know that, of course. She does not know anything about her portfolio, and my evidence for that is that there are almost 20,000 overstayers in this country. In a computerised society she has no idea where they are. That does not happen in any other business I know of. If a library book is overdue, the day it is overdue up flips a card, and someone goes and finds where that book is and who the last borrower was. It should be likewise for immigration. In a computerised society, the day a person does not leave and appears not to have left, up comes the card, and the department goes and finds where 20,000 people are.

💬 Dail Jones: They don’t want to do that, though.

No, the department does not want to do that, does it? That is because it has such crap programs, and administrative devices that do not work, that it has no idea what is going on. Yet she has the effrontery to go on radio and television saying it is all about foreigners.

💬 Craig McNair: They don’t have the will.

The Government does not have the will, it does not have the nous, it does not have the wit, and, above all, it does not have the commitment to this country’s long-term economic and social interests.

It is extraordinarily embarrassing to see someone who has legal training—I do not know what sort of legal training—come along and argue that retrospective legislation is of no moment. Members will know there is a party that prides itself on decency and family values; I wonder which party that is. Members would probably think that a party that says it is for family values would consider fairness a family value, would they not? Members would think that treating people as equals before the law was a family value, would they not? They would think upholding rights under the law was a family value. But for the United Future party, it is not. A family value for that party is hugging up to the Government and being a doormat so its members can keep their jobs. Those members know that if they were to stand up for their own people and for the interests of the people of this country, there would be a snap election—goodbye United Future, goodbye salary.

💬 Craig McNair: Goodbye Pork Pie.

Goodbye Pork Pie. The question of retrospectivity is the core of this issue. The question of whether we can just legislate away people’s rights goes to the heart of how Parliament operates. Lianne Dalziel, having screwed up and mucked up, would not be getting away with it were it not for Peter Dunne and his merry men. That is a fact. I thought these United Future people, when they campaigned, were people of honour. I thought they were people of integrity. There was not a family value they did not stand for: Easter, Christmas holidays, the tooth fairy—you name it, they were for it. But they are not for fundamental human rights, they are not for standing up for the law, and they are not for doing their duty. That is why both the Labour Party and United Future will go down at the next election.

I will tell the Committee why that is. Lianne Dalziel just found out—

Mr Chairman—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I struck a nerve.

The only nerve that has been struck by the member is the one that has reacted to the fact that I never thought I would ever sit in this Chamber and hear that member promote the interests of migrants coming to New Zealand. I am absolutely gobsmacked to be hearing that member stand up and justify the bringing to New Zealand of up to 10,000 migrants who have applied for residence in New Zealand when there is not one shred of evidence—to use a phrase that is well known to that member—that they will ever get work in their area of profession, expertise, or skill. And that member wants us to continue to invite people to this country, when we know they are being set up to fail, not set up to succeed. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is arguing that in this Chamber.

I am going to quote from a letter I received from a man who is here from India on a job-search visa. He wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this year, and I think it is important that people hear what he says. He says to me in this letter that his job-search visa does not expire until September, but he has already booked to go home, and that is as a result of the multiple job rejections he has suffered in the time he has been here under a job-search visa. There is no guarantee of residence when one gets a job-search visa. There is a 6-month period, non-transferable and non-extendable, to come and look for a job.

He speaks of meeting other Indians, 95 percent of whom he says are working in menial jobs. In fact, he tells me in the letter that they have actually even had to undersell their own qualifications—pretend they are not engineers; pretend they are not highly skilled migrants—so they can work as forecourt attendants in garages, as cleaners, or as farm labourers. It is an outrage that any member of this Committee would support that occurring. He is going home because he has pride. He said he is prepared to take a step down on the ladder, but he is not prepared to go to the bottom of the ladder and start all over again.

This is what he says in his letter: “In my case, I am almost ruined. I left my Class 1 engineer post in India, and I have already spent about half a million rupees. Even I had to ask my son in the UK to send some money meant for his studies.” That is what the current policy does to people. It brings people here to fail.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Your policy.

The member says it is my policy, but it is not. It was the policy I inherited. People can argue about how long it has taken to address it, but that is not the issue. The issue is that this Government has the courage to face up to the fact that we cannot allow that policy to continue to operate in this way.

This bill does three things. It introduces global prioritisation so that those people with relevant job offers are able to have their cases determined first. Of course that will advantage those migrants who have their residence applications in the system, who are already in New Zealand, and who already have job offers. Those people are going to be at the top of the list. They will be advantaged by the changes we are ensuring can be introduced. We are lapsing applications from those who applied last year and who do not have high points, a job-search visa, or a skilled job offer. Why would we not lapse them? If we did not lapse them, we would be inviting them to come to New Zealand to fail, and New Zealanders have had an absolute gutsful of seeing engineers, Korean pharmacists, Indian information technology specialists, and Russian agricultural scientists—these are real people I have met—who should not be in our country driving taxis. If they come to our country they should come here to do their real jobs.

We are here in the Committee stage, under urgency, debating the title to this bill, which, as Mr Peters has told the Committee, is a monument to the failure of the current Minister and her predecessor over the last 4 years. I turn, first of all, to the fact that we are dealing with this matter under urgency. On a previous occasion when an immigration bill was before the House, a member had this to say about dealing with immigration matters in this way: “I do not appreciate a Government using the urgency provisions of Parliament in order to avoid due process. Due process would require the matter to be referred to a select committee …”. There is more: “These matters ought to be addressed in terms of proper process …”, said the member. “I say that is not good enough. That is not how the Labour Party will work in practice. We will allow for open government, for proper consultative processes, and for real involvement of members of Parliament in these decisions.” That is wonderful stuff! Members are still guessing who said that, I see. It was the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, when she was in Opposition and was attacking a former Minister for using the urgency provisions to make changes in exactly in the way that she has embarked on the use of urgency today.

I say to the Minister in the chair that those words will come back to haunt her time and time again this morning, because there is a word that starts with “h” that the Standing Orders will not allow me to use in the Chamber.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It ends with a “c”.

It ends with a “y”, actually. Members who say when they are in Opposition that they will do one thing, and then come to the Chamber and do another when they are in Government are the ultimate enactment of the “Maharey principle”. Ministers who do that deserve to be roasted when they bring their bills to the Committee, and that Minister will be roasted by Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker for an ultimate act to which that “h” word applies.

I also lament the fact that we are here in urgency because the toadies and lackeys of the United Future party have decided to sign up to the use of urgency without even testing the questions that they should properly have asked. I have been doing some research on them. Mr Peters expressed an interest in knowing what was in United Future’s policy, given that party’s strong commitment to the rule of law, family values, and so on. I tell Mr Peters and other members of the Committee today what United Future members had to say. They said: “United Future is committed to policy which gives certainty to immigrants”—certainty to immigrants—“and provides a mutual benefit for them and existing citizens. Immigration is seen as entirely positive and beneficial. We must have faith that our immigration policies are fair, objective, and sustainable.”

The United Future members have done a grubby little deal with the Minister of Immigration to support the use of urgency in order to try to cover up that Minister’s and this Government’s 4-year mess in the immigration area, to change the circumstances retrospectively of a large number of Africans who have applied to become New Zealanders, and, what is more, to change retrospectively the decision of a High Court judge that is currently before the Court of Appeal. The United Future party, which stands for the rule of law, has decided to help the Minister out. Having lost the case in the High Court and having told the country on 17 June that she would go to the Court of Appeal, the United Future party has come along and told the Minister not to worry about the old appeal court judges. It has said the Minister need not bother with them, because it would help her to slide some legislation through under urgency in the middle of the night.

I have heard the name United Future a few times in the last few speeches, and what a great name it is: a united future for New Zealand. I think it is a fantastic name. United Future is pleased to support this legislation, because we are working towards a better New Zealand for all New Zealanders.

At the current time, in an industry that I am involved in, the motor industry, there is a shortage of tradespeople. This legislation will bring them up according to priority, and we will be able to have more mechanics. Winston Peters will be very pleased to know that we are training New Zealanders through the apprenticeships scheme so that they can also become mechanics and work within this country. But we also recognise that there are skills shortages in a lot of trades right throughout this nation, and this legislation will bring in priorities so that we will be able to address those shortages.

Winston also accused United Future of selling out its supporters. Does he not remember that in—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member cannot refer to someone by his or her first name. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) states that the reference must be to the member’s full name, title, or portfolio.

The Rt Hon Winston Peters—that name has a nice ring to it. He is very charismatic and I enjoy his speeches, but it is the same old record. We need to hear something new. We need something for the future, and we do not want to play the record again, I say to Winston Peters. Does he not remember that in the leaders’ debate on Television One before the last election it was Peter Dunne who made the very popular suggestion that the shortage of rural doctors could be solved by making it easier for qualified immigrant doctors to fulfil that role? This bill will enable that to occur, by prioritising those applicants for residency.

I stand to confirm that United Future supports this bill, because we believe it is good legislation. We believe it will be good for New Zealand and will get the country moving again. We want there to be a united future in this country.

That was an extraordinary contribution from Paul Adams. While he accuses other parties of singing from the same record, we just wish the United Future party would keep calling from the same record. We see in this bill the exact opposite of what the electorate was told the United Future party would bring to Parliament; it said it would bring good parliamentary process. How many lectures have I had to listen to in this Chamber from the Hon Peter Dunne about good parliamentary process? What is good, I ask Mr Adams, about announcing a bill at 4 p.m. yesterday and taking it through all stages under urgency this week, with zero public consultation? How can we justify that, I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, in terms of her track record and public comments? Does the Minister deny what she said in Parliament on 15 June 1999?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, I do not.

Why did the Minister change her mind, I ask her?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Because this is a different set of circumstances.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH There we have it. Even the Minister could not keep a straight face when she said that “this is a different set of circumstances”.

The Minister and the Labour Government have now been in office for 3 years and 8 months. The policies that the Government proposes to change have been in place for all that period. Why, I ask the Minister, does Parliament need to change in a day a policy that has been in place for 15 years? Why is she treating this Parliament with such disrespect? Even though the court decision came down in May, it was good enough for the Minister to have 6 weeks. It was good enough for Labour to sit on this policy for 4 years, but New Zealand’s Parliament is being asked to ride roughshod and push this bill through in less than 24 hours. I say that that is an outrage.

I ask the members of the United Future party whether that is what they meant when they said they would stand up for proper parliamentary process. I think not. Is it not interesting how the United Future party was to be the new migrants party? United Future members were to be a great multicultural lot who would stand up for the rights of migrants, yet they act as the doormat any day that the Government wants to push through legislation to trample all over the rights of people who have, in good faith, set aside money and made life plans to come to this country, and who are now being ridden over roughshod.

In all those greasy meetings of the Prime Minister and the Minister in the chair when they dribbled all over migrants—whether they be from Asia, North America, or Europe—the Labour Party said it was the pro-migrant party. But when the Minister scratches a bit of an itch, whammo, she is prepared to dump all over them. And thousands of people will have made life decisions on the basis of the assurances given by this Minister. She is wrecking lives by trampling all over people retrospectively. She thinks it is funny; she thinks it is a joke. I ask the Minister why she will not give those people the right to be heard at a select committee. Why will United Future not even give the people who are affected by the changes in this bill the opportunity to be heard at a select committee?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: For what purpose?

Well, it could be to be heard. It could be that migrants have a point of view. It could be something to do with what she said in 1999: that this process was a breach of United Nations principles. In 1999 Lianne Dalziel raved on about great process, and accused the Government of breaching the United Nations principles, saying, “This is not how the Labour Party will work in practice.”, and that is exactly what this Government is doing. It is riding roughshod over good parliamentary process.

This bill will be a mess. Legislation that is passed in this sort of rushed process always ends up doing things that are not intended, and I say the Minister should rethink.

New Zealand First opposes this legislation, which is clearly rushed legislation. It breaches all constitutional aspects. It is part of our traditional parliamentary process that legislation should go to a select committee, and this legislation is not to go to a select committee. Obviously, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel is dreadfully embarrassed about the entire mess of her portfolio, and this bill should really be called the “Immigration Amendment (Why Lianne Dalziel Should Resign as Minister of Immigration) Bill” forthwith, because she is totally out of touch with her portfolio.

When we look at why this bill is before the House and at the court case, we see that all the plaintiff wanted to do was to allow general skills applicants to have the opportunity to apply for a general skills visa under existing policy at that time. There appears to be a distinction made in that case between those people who had their visas cancelled from 20 November 2002 onwards and those who did not have their visas cancelled prior to that date. As I read the case and the legislation, it seems to me that if one had lodged an application before 19 November, the court case states in paragraph 97 that: “The announced policy is not invalid insofar as it relates to persons who have been invited to make a job-search visa application prior to 20 November 2002.” That seems to be the situation there.

This Minister just seems to want those people who are merely applying for a visa, and who have lodged their application, to be unable to continue with their application.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: If they have lodged an application for a job-search visa they are OK; their applications are not lapsed.

OK, so if they have lodged their application for a job-search visa they are OK, but if they have not lodged their application and are in the process of doing that—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No. If they have been invited to lodge an application they are OK; they will not be lapsed.

Only if they have been invited, but if they have not been invited—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: If they have not been invited to lodge an application for a job search visa they will be lapsed, unless they have 28 points or more or have the offer of a skilled job.

I appreciate the Minister taking the time to try to explain the situation, but would it not have been very much better if we had been able to go to a select committee and discuss the matter there? We could then have had a clear indication of what was happening. But I paused so that the Minister could at least make that contribution to the Committee and we would be better informed.

However, from reading the Dominion Post today, it seems that if one is in New Zealand now one will get a head start under this legislation, as opposed to those who have followed the previous practice and waited to lodge their application, having gone through all the proper rigmaroles. Those who have taken the time and trouble to comply with the law as it stood when lodging their application, and who are not yet in New Zealand, will be out of luck, because this Minister is saying that people from overseas who are in New Zealand on other types of visas will have priority over those who are not here—even though they may be here on totally different grounds, and may not be as eligible as someone else who may have applied.

For example, we have 63,500 people here who have been admitted under temporary work policies, so their situation may be changed by the very fact that they are here now only as immigrants under a temporary work policy. We also have another 73,800 people who are covered by student visas and permits. In terms of the New Zealand Immigration Service’s statistics for 2002, all those people are part of the 190,000 people who were here as immigrants in the year 2002. As set out in today’s Dominion Post and in terms of this policy, it seems that the group of 63,500 people and the group of 73,800 people can apply well and truly in advance of anybody else. So it would seem that a person who is here as an English-language student—and one’s English is obviously not very good if that is the case—would have a head start over someone who can already speak English.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No.

Well, people in that situation must have a head start, because they are here now. As the Dominion Post stated: “But they could also benefit foreign tertiary students, including many from China. She indicated”—referring to the Minister—“they would get priority, especially if they had a job offer.” We know what some of those job offers are—we have all sorts of immigration consultants running all sorts of schemes.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the title of this bill. I will start off by laying out an offer to listeners to Parliament and all those interested in this bill that is running roughshod over genuine immigrants wanting to come to this country. The offer is this: could someone please send the Minister another letter? Because in the 4 years that this Government has been in power, she has had only one letter from one supporter, which she keeps bringing to this House time and time again to justify her position. Where was that letter from?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I got it only this year.

The Minister tells us that she received a letter in support of her work only this year. What country was that letter from?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The guy was in New Zealand on a job-search visa.

From what country?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: From India.

The Minister informs us that her cousin from India wrote her a letter. The only support she can get in 4 years is one letter from her cousin, which she keeps bringing down to this House to dish out.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Stop misrepresenting me!

I am sorry, I do not know how close the family member is who keeps writing to the Minister, but I just ask someone to please send the Minister another letter of support. After 4 long years, and 15 years of this policy being in place, we want to know that this Minister has other supporters out there. I ask her supporters to please write to her.

We are here under urgency to debate this bill. I want to support my colleague Pansy Wong—I support her in virtually every enterprise that she undertakes—in changing the name of this bill to the “Immigration Amendment (Rejection of Application Without Reasons) Bill”, because that is what it is. I want to make the Minister painfully aware of the New Zealanders out there, and of those people out there who want to come and remain in this country—those genuine potential settlers in this country. Clearly, in the last couple of years since she became a Minister, she has not been turning up to her electorate office to face genuine people who want to come to this country and contribute. She has not faced them, or walked with them through 2 years of applications.

My electorate office actually helps the Immigration Service process many of those applications and advises the Minister’s office of that. That Minister has not walked through the process with those people for 2 years; she has not taken them through all those hoops, jumped over all those hurdles, held their hands, rung them back, written letters, and advocated for them—only to find that this Government legislates over all that work and all those genuine applications. To be blindsided through legislation introduced into the House and passed over 48 hours, and to be blindsided after 2 years’ work, is so very soul-destroying. Perhaps the Minister should turn up to her electorate office, start working with people on the ground, and experience those genuine cases.

I know there are cases that are not genuine. I know that people want to come to this country who have nothing to offer. I know that the Minister lets those people in willy-nilly, then loses track of them. I believe she has lost track of 20,000 people. Why is the Minister riding roughshod over those genuine people who want to come to this country and contribute? I do not know. It is certainly turning the corner on what she has said previously. The way she has done it is highly disheartening, and I do not like to question her professionalism. To say in this House, amongst colleagues who previously had respect for this Minister: “I do not appreciate a Government—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Name one!

I can name several—those members of United Future. I have seen those members following this Minister around, opening doors for her and brushing dust off her coat. They respect this Minister, but no one else does.

Lianne Dalziel is a Minister who has so little evidence to put up that she actually comes down with a letter and seeks to hide behind it—that is, one letter from an Indian. She then said that 95 percent of them were in the category of being here and not being able to get jobs. I can recall a Lianne Dalziel marching up from the bottom of town with an Indian in a baseball cap who talked about stopping “ racism”. There were a handful of MPs—Chris Carter being one of them—talking about stopping racism.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Who’s this?

That man from the Punjab, whom the Minister was holding hands with, and whom she and Chris Carter came out in sympathy with.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Excuse me, I wasn’t even there.

The Minister cannot make a speech from the chair. When I have finished, she can get up and make her speech.

Here she is admitting every complaint New Zealand First has ever made. In the letter she says that 95 percent of this person’s colleagues are all in the same category, and they cannot get jobs. I ask the Minister what the hell were they doing here? Were they accessing free medicine? Yes! Were they on a benefit? Yes! Could they get emergency housing? Yes! Who missed out?

💬 Opposition Members: We did!

Precisely! The second thing she said was that she would never see the day when Winston Peters and New Zealand First would stand up for the interests of migrants. She is so wrong. We have always believed that there should be a sound, rational, coherent internationally respected immigration policy, but that is not 72,000 migrants a year. That is probably between 10,000 and 15,000 a year. Who said that? Annette King said that when she was the spokesperson for Labour back in 1996, when it was polling 16 percent and we were polling 32 percent. Labour members decided to adopt our policy. They said that between 10,000 and 15,000 immigrants should be coming here, and in their time they brought in over 72,000 per year.

A little while ago the Minister said that this global prioritisation programme was an excellent idea. On Morning Report this morning she was asked: “Who’s going to administer the global prioritisation programme on the ground?”. She did not know. Her answer was: “We’ll do it through trade fairs.” Here is the great spin-doctor of Helen Clark’s office at work! The whole thing is to get rid of doctors driving taxis. We have to ask ourselves this question—and it is a very simple one—how many doctors are driving taxis? Are 72,000 doctors driving taxis? No! Are 1,000 doctors driving taxis? No! Are some hundreds driving taxis? Yes, but to get rid of the syndrome of overqualified people driving taxis, we are to take 72,000 alongside them.

United Future members then come along and say that they will support the policy, because New Zealand will get rural doctors—72,000 rural doctors now, apparently. That is extraordinarily naive on the part of United Future members, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the facts. I say to them one more time that the shape, face, character, and future of this country is being turned upside down beyond our parents’ wildest recognition. Today one of the biggest sections of letters to that most liberal institution—namely, Craccum of Auckland University—comes from students who say: “What the hell am I doing walking around this campus when I can’t read anything in English there. It is all in Mandarin, Cantonese, and everything but English.” A whole lot of students who would normally be liberal-minded are saying: “I am being shut out of my own country. I’m not getting a fair go in my own land.” These are students who would normally be tolerant.

💬 Pita Paraone: What about Māori?

The terrible thing about the Māori people is that—apart from New Zealand First—they have no voice at all in this Parliament. We just heard two Māori members take a call, which lasted for only 1 minute in total.

I move, That the question be now put.

I draw to the attention of the Committee, although I am sure it has been drawn before, to the fact that we have a Minister in the chair who is a lawyer—a paragon of constitutionalism. That is what she would say—a paragon of constitutionalism. I have read a document—which I heard her say earlier today that she did not resile from—in which she said she did not appreciate a Government using urgency provisions in Parliament to avoid due process. That was said on 15 June 1999. [Interruption] Mr Clayton Cosgrove might say that the Minister should be spared the embarrassment of having that read out in this Committee. I have read about this Minister in the newspapers, and she has said to journalists that she takes the rule of law and her ministerial responsibilities very seriously. So what does she do in her first serious legislative action as a Minister? She breaches one of the most basic constitutional concepts—that is, she takes people’s rights away, misleads them, and deals cavalierly with 20,000 applicants.

There was another way here. The Minister could have dealt with those 20,000 applicants fairly and reasonably. She could have put some extra staff into the department and processed those applications. On this side of the House, we recognise that the old system of immigration did not quite work. My colleagues—Murray McCully, Pansy Wong, and others—have talked about the need to change the policy. It should be forward-looking. Another bill is now before the select committee that will deal with this issue, but that is no excuse whatsoever to run roughshod over the rights—and they are rights—of 20,000 people. It is no excuse to run roughshod over the courts, the judgment of Randerson J, and just say to 20,000 people: “You’re out. Apply again and we might think about it’’—notwithstanding that they have paid hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for the application fee, and also fees to consultants.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That they don’t need to spend.

That they have to spend to get fair consideration by the deprtment. That is the truth, and everyone in this Committee knows it. Who could possibly believe that the Immigration Service is so competent that it does not need to use immigration consultants? This morning on radio I heard that the Minister had engaged Malcolm Pacific to process some applications for Southland—and here is the Minister saying that immigration consultants are not needed. What absolute nonsense! At least she could tell the truth in this Committee today.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Well, I am sure the Minister does tell the truth in this Chamber. She could at least acknowledge what she said on radio this morning. That at least is what I want to hear.

The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim to be the paragon of constitutionalism, then run roughshod over judgments of the courts, and over the rights of 20,000 people, when there is another way to deal with the matter. If those 20,000 applicants were processed under the old rules, some would get in and some would not. The new rules could then be applied in the future. That at least would have been a reasonable constitutional approach to this issue.

I have quoted the statements made by the Minister in this Chamber 4 years ago, and I took those statements at face value. I have understood that she is a person learned in law. She talks about the conventions of the United Nations, which are the Holy Grail for this Government. United Nations conventions must rule on all occasions.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: When it suits.

When it suits, as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu says.

I move, That the question be now put.