Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

Clause 2 is an important clause in the bill before the Committee today, because, taken in context, it gives effect to the retrospective nature of the legislation. For the benefit of those members who have not read it carefully and understood that context—because we are here today under urgency, taking this bill through all its stages—there will be no opportunity for members of the public, for those who made their applications in good faith, or for any other party with a view on this matter, to make a submission. The Government intends not only to go through this Committee stage, but also to go through the third reading. On the conclusion of the third reading, this bill will receive the royal assent—no doubt as early as tomorrow. Clause 2 gives effect to this retrospective legislation being passed under urgency immediately upon the receipt of the royal assent. It is important that we as a Committee understand the significance of this clause.

Some important issues flow from that. The first is that from the time the bill is assented to, the Government will effectively have disengaged from a legal process that it made an in-good-faith commitment to initially, but instead decided to abandon in favour of a legislative process under urgency. The prime purpose of this bill—the driver of the so-called immigration policy changes announced by the Minister at the last minute yesterday to avoid scrutiny—is to cover up for the Minister’s misdemeanour in failing to make the policy changes that would have given due and proper notice to those seeking to become resident in New Zealand. A prudent and sensible Minister would have taken those policy changes to Cabinet, so that we would see progressive process of analysis by officials, and recommendations from Ministers to the Cabinet committee and Cabinet.

Because she did not engage in that proper process of analysis in making those recommendations, the Minister finally woke up one morning and found a massive mess on her hands, and her reaction compounded that mess. She decided to promulgate changes that the High Court of this country ultimately found, in part, to be unlawful. Justice Randerson found that, in part, the legislative panic responses made by this Minister were unlawful. On 17 June, only 2 weeks ago, the Minister made a solemn commitment to pursue the matter by way of appeal to the High Court. I say to her that she will have to take a call on clause 2 and tell us how it can be that on 17 June, just 2 weeks ago, she told members of Parliament, members of the public, and representatives of the news media that she strongly refuted the decision made by Justice Randerson. She was convinced that it would be open to successful appeal, and that she and the Government would so appeal. That is what she told us just 2 weeks ago.

I say to her today that she needs to take a call and explain. When she told the public of New Zealand that she was going to lodge that appeal, did she know that she was embarking instead, by subterfuge, on this legislative initiative? If so, she is guilty of a gross act of bad faith towards the news media and the public of this country. I find it unbelievable that she could not have known 2 weeks ago that she was going to bring this bill before the House and seek urgency today. I find it difficult to believe, because, first of all, I know how long it takes to draft a bill. Secondly, I know how long it takes United Future to dither away and make up its mind about whether it will support the Government on a bill like this. The Minister needs to take a call.

Clause 2 sets out the day on which the bill receives the royal assent. It sets out the day on which this Government finally admits that its immigration policies are an absolute disaster, that it does not know what it is doing, and that what it said on 17 June does not appear to have been correct. The Government said it would go to the Court of Appeal, but somehow, in the meantime, it has changed its mind, and now it will repeal the legislation altogether. Well, we have got legislation at various stages. We have known for years that this Government does not know what it is doing about immigration. New Zealand First has made that point clear. Now we have an admission that all the work that the Government was doing on the job-search visa, and such like, was something that it did not fully comprehend. When the court case was taken, presumably the Government expected to win it, and, of course, the Government failed and lost it.

Even prior to the court case it was clear that when the Minister was undertaking her policy she did not appreciate she had requirements that needed to be fulfilled in the way in which the policy should be carried out, and the court has made it clear that this Government has not carried out its policy properly. It has been a saga of failures on the part of this Government, and now here we are in Parliament, under urgency, being asked to rubber-stamp this Government’s failure. To be perfectly frank, no one is absolutely sure—including the Minister, and that is not unusual—just what the Minister will be doing as far as this legislation is concerned. Are we being asked to implement legislation that will be given effect to by way of stands at trade fairs in New Delhi, Lahore, Beijing, Taiwan, Frankfurt, and such like? The commencement date will give effect to something that no one quite knows anything about, including the Minister, as was clear from Morning Report this morning. We in New Zealand First take the view that this bill should not come into force when it receives the royal assent. In fact, the bill should not be before the House at all in this way. Clearly, it should not come into force until after there has been select committee deliberation, until Government members themselves know what it is all about, and until United Future gets to know what it is all about. It should not come into effect until those two parties at least know what is going on.

All we have heard from United Future so far is a speech that was prepared by the Government. United Future has repeated it word for word. The United Future members do not quite understand what the speech says, but they repeated it anyway. United Future members like being in this House. They do not like the possibility of going to a general election and losing the position they have in this House. As good Christians, United Future members believe that they may as well hang in there for another 2 years and take whatever they might be able to get in the meantime, instead of standing up for their Christian values and their policies, and saying the bill should not come into effect on the day it receives the royal assent—which is likely to be tomorrow or the next day—but, rather, after it has been to a select committee and people have made submissions. For example, the bill should not come into effect until we in this House know the outcome of the discussions with “the Ministries of Economic Development, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Justice, and Social Development; the Department of Internal Affairs (Ethnic Affairs); Treasury; and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.”, as set out on page 6 of the commentary on the bill.

The bill should not come into effect until the Opposition parties know what those discussions were, and whether they were lengthy or short. That would give us the opportunity to understand what is in the legislation. We do not know what is in there. We have not been told. I am sure that United Future has not been told, but that does not stop it from supporting the Government. We have a constitutional right to ask that this bill should not come into effect until all the agencies are consulted; including, for example, Te Puni Kōkiri—I would like to know what Te Puni Kōkiri has to say about the bill—the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and the Department of the Prime Minister—

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Te Māngai Pāho.

New Zealand First has not taken much interest in those affairs. I will leave that to Rodney Hide and Murray McCully. I am still struggling to get around the name of the department, let alone what it says it does or does not do.

This bill should not come into effect later this week, as is envisaged by this Government. Clearly, it is a breach of all constitutional process.

I am thankful for an opportunity to point out to members of the Committee—clearly, many members, such as the Greens, have not read the bill and kept up with progress—the specific significance of clause 2, “Commencement”, which states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” As they say, the devil is in the detail. It is certainly not written in that clause, but everyone should be well aware that that clause is in fact the clause that rides roughshod over due process in New Zealand. It rides roughshod over the fact that the bill should be considered by a select committee. New Zealanders from across the country should have the opportunity to make submissions to this Government and to Opposition members, and we should see good law being passed in the proper manner.

I was interested to hear members read out what the Minister said back in 1999. She said: “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, for members to be properly briefed by officials, and for us to be able to canvass issues as to whether the court would be likely to use the United Nations convention to override the provisions of the statute.” I support that statement from the Minister in the chair, Lianne Dalziel. The difficulty is that I supported the Minister back in 1999 when she said that, but I certainly do not support her today as she puts this bill through under urgency and asks that the commencement date occur when it receives the royal assent, which could be any day now.

I would like that Minister to know that members of Parliament throughout the country—certainly National members of Parliament—are dealing with immigration cases all the time. Certainly, when people walk into my electorate office, and into National Party electorate offices throughout the country, we go through due process. We do not like the idea of this commencement date effectively wiping out 2 years worth of applications—in fact, in some cases, people lodged applications to come to this country and work here 2 years ago. We have opened the door to those people. I certainly have in Whangarei. We have worked with genuine people over a period of 2 years, and that Minister, with this commencement clause, will effectively nullify all the work that has been done. It is a very sad issue, I believe, and the Minister should take that into account. We look at issues—I certainly do in my electorate office—on a case-by-case basis. But that Minister is going to legislate over all cases for no reason, and will reject applications, for 2 years, for no reason at all, except, of course, to avoid her conflict with what the court has stated.

The major point I want to make about this particular commencement clause is that it simply provides a vehicle for rejecting a whole lot of applications that have been lodged before this Minister. Whenever she does that, she will retrospectively exclude potentially very good New Zealanders from working and raising their families in our country. I am disappointed by that, because I have worked with people coming to Whangarei on a case-by-case basis, as do other National MPs throughout the country. We have taken their issues in hand, helped them where we could, appealed to the Minister where we could not, then we turn round and find out that, effectively, all that work will be nullified. It does not matter to the Minister whether one person has applied over the 2 years, or whether thousands—which is, in fact, the case—have applied; she is going to make their applications lapse. I wish she would front up to those many, many people throughout this country who will be in tears because of all the hurdles they have jumped in the last 2 years.

Clause 2 provides that the bill will come into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. On its face, that clause looks innocuous enough, but in the context of what it is about to achieve, it is a very serious matter indeed. I hope that the members of the public who might be listening are appreciating very clearly the serious nature of this clause. First of all, as my colleagues have pointed out, we are dealing with this matter under urgency. This bill was introduced just yesterday afternoon. It is proposed that the bill go through all its stages today—it will probably become law by 1 o’clock this afternoon. Once it has received the royal assent, which will be over the next 1 or 2 days, the rights of a whole lot of legitimate migrant applicants will have been ridden roughshod over by this Minister.

Just 2 years ago, this Minister made some very fine statements—statements that I agree with—and although they have been read out already, I want to read them out again. I want the Minister to explain to members here in the Chamber—and to those people who are listening, and to members of the public who value due process of law, value the rights of citizens, visitors, migrants, and value following due process, and who, hopefully, will be as appalled as we are—that people’s rights are now being ridden roughshod over by this Minister. This is what she said in 1999, which is just like yesterday: “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, for members to be properly briefed by officials, and for us to be able to canvass issues as to whether the court would be likely to use the United Nations convention to override the provisions of the statute.”

I want the Minister to take a call and explain to us how she can reconcile the fact that a bill that is to pass into law today—it commences its legitimacy today, almost—with the statements she made only 4 years ago. I ask the Minister to get to her feet and answer that matter. It is all very well to sit in the chair and sneer and laugh, but this is a very serious thing that she does today. Not only are we are dealing with a bill under urgency, in order for it to pass through all stages in a very short space of time, but we are dealing with a bill that has a retrospective impact. The Minister will shut out and ride roughshod over the rights of a number of migrants who have made legitimate applications, just 2 weeks after she cunningly, probably, put people’s minds at rest—and I do think it was a cunning thing that she did. She indicated that she would appeal the decision of the High Court, thereby, I would say, giving applicants a bit of respite, and a reason to think: “Well, we’re still in the game. We still have a chance.” But at that point, as my colleague Murray McCully says, a Minister would already have been drafting legislation for it to be introduced into the House yesterday—or, at least, had to have had the decision made in Cabinet. So that was a very cunning ploy that she used. I agree with Murray McCully when he suggests that this bill is a breach of good faith. I am waiting for the Minister to stand and justify this bill being brought in under urgency, justify its passage into law within a space of 24 hours, and justify why she thinks it proper to do this to legitimate applicants.

I want to speak on the commencement clause, because issues concerning the reputation of our country and the reputation of this Parliament are at stake. When people want to migrate to this country they are quite entitled to know whether dirty tricks of this sort will be pulled on them. When this Minister of Immigration pulls the sort of trick that she has pulled over the last 2 days—with a commencement clause that rides roughshod over the rights of others—this country’s reputation is damaged and we look like a Mickey Mouse outfit. I accept that it is absolutely the right of the Government of New Zealand to set the immigration policy of this country. But what is not right is for the Minister to do that in such a way that it rides roughshod over the life plans that are made by thousands of people. If we have laws of that sort, people will look to New Zealand and say we are a Mickey Mouse, banana-type State. It will mean that the words of Ministers of the Crown of New Zealand cannot be trusted.

I too want to speak to what the Minister said in 1999 about these issues. The Minister can laugh about it—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s not relevant.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am the judge of whether it is relevant.

The Minister says it is not relevant. It is relevant, because on 15 June 1999 the Minister, then in Opposition, said things about the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). Well, this is an Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). On that occasion she made great importance of parliamentary process, and it comes directly to the commencement issues, because this bill comes into effect long before what she said was “due process”, long before people have had an opportunity to have a say, and long before a select committee has had an opportunity to look at the bill. She also said it was wrong to override the provisions of an existing statute. The Minister cannot just laugh about it. Every member of the House wants the trade of politics to be held with respect. When she says things in this Parliament, then, as Minister, does the exact opposite, she brings the reputation of every single parliamentarian and every single Minister into disrepute—because she is overriding what she said. I say to the Minister in the chair, Lianne Dalziel, that she brings New Zealand’s good name into disrepute, she brings parliamentarians into disrepute, and she brings Ministers’ words into disrepute. I say that is wrong. The Minister cannot just laugh it off. She needs to get to her feet and give the Committee an explanation. Why is it that the words she said in 1999, when she was in Opposition, do not apply now that she is in Government? What has changed? Is it the “Maharey principle”—the Labour standard? What has changed?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The Government changed!

Mr Cunliffe said the Government has changed. Well, is that not a great standard of integrity from this Government! It says: “We’ll tell you one spin when we’re on the Opposition benches, and we’ll tell you a completely different line when we’re in Government.” Is that the Labour Party’s policy? Why did Labour not tell the public about that when it went to the electorate in 1999?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: He can’t even turn up to court on time.

Mr Barker goes around saying that Labour honours its word. I say: “Bedevilled, you honour your word!” Labour is doing exactly the opposite of what it said prior to the last election, and that cannot be laughed off. I challenge Mr Barker to get to his feet and say what is different.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: At least I can get to court on time.

Oh, well! He does not want to answer the question. Why did Labour say in 1999 that these sorts of bills should go to a select committee?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Get your hands out of your pockets. You can’t speak properly.

He wants to talk about the fact that I have my hand in my pocket. He wants to talk about every possible irrelevant thing. He does not want to talk about telling the truth. He does not want to talk about New Zealand’s reputation. He does not want to talk about whether we can rely on the word of this Minister. He does not want to talk about the rights of people who come to this country in good faith. He just wants to talk about whether my hand is in my pocket. Well, I have to say to the Minister—and that Minister—that reputation counts, and this Minister and this Government are muddying it.

This clause is particularly important in the context of the previous speeches made to this Parliament by the Minister who is now in the chair, Lianne Dalziel. But it is even more important in the context of what should underpin immigration policy. Undoubtedly, immigration policy needs to be predictable, transparent, certain, and fair, and on every one of those counts this bill before the Committee today, brought in under urgency, is neither predictable, nor transparent, nor certain, nor fair. I certainly hope that the Minister in the chair will take a call on the words that she gave to this House back on 15 June 1999, particularly when, regarding the process, she said—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should be speaking to the commencement date.

Yes, and this is absolutely relevant to the commencement date, in that this bill was brought in under urgency, and comes into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent—which, unfortunately, is likely to be today because there will be no select committee deliberation, although that is one of the criteria that the Minister in the chair said was absolutely essential to it. After all, the Minister in the chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there is a cellphone going off in this House. That is out of order. There is a Speaker’s ruling about the use of cellphones in the House. They are not permitted. The member will withdraw and apologise for that breach.

I certainly withdraw and apologise. I had turned it off but, mysteriously, it came on again—maybe because of the concern I have about this Minister!

This Minister had 9 years in Opposition complaining about process, and has had 47 months in Government, giving her a reasonable opportunity to organise the Immigration Service, but we have a shambles. There are 20,000 applicants at stake here—46,000 people who have had their lives absolutely turned upside down by this Minister, who is bringing in, under urgency, this untimely bill. What an absolutely hopeless Minister she is to bring about this situation after all that time! It reflects her inability to manage an immigration process. It is absolutely a shambles. I hear time and time again from my constituents in Port Waikato about how absolutely difficult and hopeless it is to get an immigration application through in a manner anywhere near timely or consistent, or even to be able to speak to immigration consultants or to communicate with the Immigration Service, because of the absolute backlog and the unwillingness of the staff to answer calls, emails, and letters. That is the shambles that this Minister has brought about.

Hence this commencement clause—which has been brought in under urgency—is a reflection of this Minister’s inability to handle a very sensitive portfolio that reflects on the lives of not just thousands of people but tens of thousands of people. She has brought about a shambles. She said she does not appreciate a Government using the urgency provisions of Parliament in order to avoid due process. I do hope that the Minister in the chair will reflect on her words, and take a call and tell Parliament why she said those things.

I move, That the question be now put.