Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order at the outset in relation to your decision on the matter of closure—not the closure you have just taken, but the closure on the part that is now before the Committee. I do so because I want to avoid an untimely mess of the sort that will, I assure you, ensue if we have the exercise of the Chair’s judgment in the same way as was the case in relation to the part that has just been the subject of a vote. I am fully aware of the provisions of Standing Order 138, to which you referred the Committee in a brief way. I refer to Standing Order 138(3), in particular, which states: “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if, in the Speaker’s opinion, it is reasonable to do so.” I will not dispute the fact that the judgment is one for discretion on your part, but I think it is open to members to seek to persuade you as to a course that is reasonable in the circumstances. I raise that at the outset in relation to Part 2.

Both Part 1 and Part 2 are important provisions in this legislation. In addition to the fact that this is a bill that deals with applications that have been made in good faith, some of which are being rendered null and void as a consequence of this amending legislation, and in addition to the fact that this matter is being dealt with under urgency, there is also the consideration that the bill has the effect of overriding a High Court decision that is currently the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. In addition—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I will get the Speaker back if you want me to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just referring the member to the fact that a point of order is to be terse and to the point.

Yes, I am making detailed submissions to you because I do not want to see you make the same mistake you did in the first part.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am listening to the member and I am mindful of what he is saying, but I would like him to come to the point.

I would like you to turn your mind to this. In relation to a bill that is going through the House under urgency, which changes a High Court decision that is currently the subject of an appeal, and which will wipe out the applications of over 10,000 applicants, to use the Minister’s own figures, I suggest to you that it is very far from reasonable for the presiding officer to decide that one speech each from New Zealand First and ACT—particularly as Mr Jones has said New Zealand First has a special interest in this matter—and three speeches from the National Party, is adequate. That is very far from reasonable. Unless we can get some indication from you that Part 2 will be dealt with in a way that the Committee can be persuaded meets the reasonableness test of Standing Order 138(3), we will have to go to a higher authority to get some direction on this matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am concerned in regard to any ruling on this type of bill, where there is a proposal that a court’s decision be overturned—in this case, a High Court decision only—that the standard accepted in this type of case might be the standard that is accepted, say, in a case in which the House might be faced with a Court of Appeal decision that it wishes to overturn. I would not like it to be accepted in any way that New Zealand First would accept that type of situation, because we do not want this Parliament to be able to say at some later stage in Committee that when we overturned that High Court decision we had five speeches only, and New Zealand First got only one call, and now that we are overturning a Court of Appeal decision the same rules apply. When we are overturning a court decision I would expect that—in or out of urgency—we should get more calls than would normally be the case, because we are overturning a very considered decision to which the Government has been part, and on which the Government has made detailed and lengthy submissions, being a party to that court case, and perhaps in any other case that might be before the Court of Appeal. You have made your decision on the first part, but I would respectfully ask that more time be given on Part 2 to avoid precedents being set for future cases.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not need any help, Mr Shirley. I accept and I acknowledge the contributions that have been made, both by the Hon Murray McCully and by the honourable member Dail Jones, and I will certainly take those matters into consideration on the second part, because the second part deals with the validation and processing of applications. I also refer members to Speakers’ rulings 54/2 and 63/2, which detail that I am the sole judge of relevancy. I adjudged that speeches were becoming very similar. The point was made that the debate was wide-ranging only on the title debate. I refer members to that. I acknowledge that I have listened to their representations and I will certainly take note of them during the debate on Part 2.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would have preferred to raise this matter in speaking to the previous point of order, because it would have related directly to that, but you denied me that right. Let me be quite clear at the outset. I am not relitigating your decision. You are the sole judge, although I note that Speaker’s ruling 54/2 states: “I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” Those were the words of Mr Speaker Statham in 1931, which have stood the test of time. My point is this, which I wanted to add: the Business Committee had a situation in which the proposal was that we could perhaps consider a question time with a guaranteed fixed time for finishing—a 6 o’clock Friday sort of an arrangement. The ACT party did not support that, because we recognise that these matters need to be debated and that the Government, when the House goes into urgency, should not be able to get off the hook and run to an agreed time where the presiding officer in the Chair gives a token hour here and a token hour there, then closes it down. These are very serious matters, for the reasons that have been very eloquently outlined by Mr Jones and the National Party, and I can only say in regard to the denial of question time that these matters are important, they are overriding court decisions, and I urge you, in considering Part 2, to not, in the words of Mr Statham, apply it too harshly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you Mr Shirley. As I said to both the Hon Murray McCully and the honourable member Dail Jones, it will certainly be taken into consideration. I thank members for their contributions.

I would like to express a view on Part 2 of this bill, and I know that Dail Jones certainly wants to, too. I hope he is able to give us at least a titbit of what he was going to present in terms of new information from the previous one, and that he will be allowed the flexibility to do that.

I would like to focus on clause 6, “Lapsing of certain applications made before 20 November 2002”, because that particular clause speaks directly to those people who are directly affected by the rash move of this Labour Government to introduce, and pass, in urgency this bill that is riding roughshod over people’s rights; and, certainly, it rides roughshod over us parliamentarians in that it denies us the ability to have our say. Clause 6 is one of the key clauses in this bill that affects those people who have been sidelined.

We understand from the Government that there are 20,000 general skills category applications awaiting decisions. I want to know why we have to pass legislation that forces the lapsing of those applications made before 20 November 2002, just because the Minister Lianne Dalziel and her department have been dragging the chain in allowing those applications to go through or to have some sort of scrutiny—to a greater or lesser degree. I know that many hard-working members will be well aware that applications made under those categories have often been submitted 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 18 months ago, or 2 years ago, that it takes an awfully long time for them to go through the process, and that it is very rarely the fault of the applicant or the MP supporting them in that, or even the fault of the consultant in those cases, that it has taken so long. So why are they the ones who are penalised through this legislation?

I will read clause 6(1): “All applications for residence visas or residence permits made before 20 November 2002 under the general skills category”—and we understand there are 20,000 of those—“of Government residence policy that have not been decided as at the commencement of this Act”—and that could happen any day now—“are treated as lapsed, except where, as at the beginning of 1 July 2003”, and then it lists exceptions to that first rule.

I want to know why they are treated as lapsed, when, certainly, the person to whom the application relates has been working hell for leather to provide all the information required to prove that he or she is a genuine case. Such people often work side by side with their member of Parliament, they will have got the paperwork from overseas, and internally within New Zealand, they will have seen employers, met all the requirements, and jumped through every hoop and over every hurdle, and I want to know why those people, through blood, sweat, and tears, with all the help they have employed—paid or otherwise—are treated as lapsed.

I can tell members now that those 20,000 people do not consider their work to have lapsed. Not a day has gone by when they have not either worried or actively involved themselves in the application process, and they certainly do not consider themselves lapsed. That is why we have pointed out to Minister Dalziel time and time again that she should not be riding roughshod over due process.

The Government tells us that there are actually 14,669 applications lodged prior to 20 November 2002. The Minister might have a number of 14,669, but National members of Parliament know some of those people as individuals, and they do not like being just one number among 15,000.

I am looking at clause 5, and I will try to concentrate on that in this call. I will look to make a speech on clause 6 later. We have a situation here where the heading to clause 5 is “Past order and manner of processing applications deemed valid”. I have gone to the clause to try to understand what it means—bearing in mind that it has not been to a select committee, where members would get a considerable amount of time to look at a bill; instead, here we are, with barely 5 minutes to come to grips with it and to ask questions on it.

Subclause 5(1) states: “Any—(a) failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister to process an application for a visa or permit …; or (b) decision by a visa officer or an immigration officer … to process or not to process an application … occurring or made before the commencement of this Act is deemed to have been validly done”. So the Government is saying that any mistakes that we make—and which we will continue to make—before this legislation comes into force, which could be tomorrow, 3 July, are valid. It does not matter what the mistake is, and it does not matter what has been done, because the decision is still valid—even if we do not know a mistake was made. We may not have the faintest idea of what we are doing in our department, but regardless of the fact that we do not know what the decision is, even if it is the wrong decision it is deemed to be the right decision.

The Government is saying that all wrong decisions are right decisions. All the applications that have been moved along by a visa officer for people who may be criminals from overseas, or who may be involved in some type of fraud, scam, or the like, have been validly processed. At the same time, all the applications that should have gone ahead and been properly considered, but that have been rejected, have also been validly processed, even though the rejection of those applications did not comply with any Government policy. What a load of nonsense that is!

Subclause 5(2) states that “No appeal lies against any decision to process or not to process an application”, whether or not the appeal is made by an authority, or even by the Minister. So a visa officer in New Delhi could continue to process the application of a known terrorist from, say, Kashmir or Afghanistan, and that process and suchlike could be accepted—whatever “process” actually means, and I will look at clause 5(4) later. This bill validates all sorts of processes, no matter how ineffectual, wrong, or contrary to policy they may be. The Minister, the authority, the tribunal, or a court cannot object to what an official has done. What preposterous legislation this is! Someone has dreamt it up in a hurry, without any great concern. I accept the Minister’s word, but in the four working days or so when this bill was being assessed, which was somewhere between 23 June and when this bill was introduced yesterday afternoon—we have not even had the chance to look at it for 24 hours—legislation has been rushed in that will allow an official to let a terrorist from Afghanistan, or possibly Iraq, into the country. For all that we know, Osama bin Laden could be approved under this legislation, and the Minister could not object to the way in which his application had been processed.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: He might already be here.

That is right—goodness only knows. This Government is verifying that kind of mistake in this legislation.

One tries to work out the meaning of “to process”—or not to process. It is very Hamlet-esque; it is very Shakespearean.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: That is the question.

It is the question, and I am asking it. What does it mean to process an application or not to process it? Clause 5(4)(a) confuses the issue even more. It states: “a reference to a failure to process an application includes a reference to a failure to continue to process an application”. Then clause 5(4)(c) goes on to state: “a reference to a decision not to process an application includes a reference to a decision not to continue to process an application.” What is meant by processing an application? Does that include completing the application? I ask that question. How far does the term “process” go? It could mean an application is stamped, done, and delivered.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It’s absolute.

It is absolute. That could mean the process is completed and Osama bin Laden is welcome to New Zealand, because the New Zealand Labour Party and United Future would welcome him in terms of clause 5 of this bill.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to respond to the member who has just resumed his seat. I should make the point, because he clearly did not hear what I said earlier on, that clause 3 was added to the bill as a result of the decision that was taken on 23 June. This bill was already in the process of being finalised prior to that date. So the lapsing provisions were already being addressed at that point. I asked the officials to again look at including clause 3 in the legislation, to cover the lapsing provisions and the global prioritisation. So I want to clarify for the member that that was not something that was written. Those particular provisions were not written at that late stage.

I thought I would share with the Committee the newsroom agency story that has come in over the wires in respect of the response to this particular part. I will just quote from the document itself. It states: “An immigration consultant, Ted Legget, says the Government’s move to actively recruit skilled migrants will ensure immigrants can put their skills to use as soon as they arrive in the country. He says immigrants who cannot settle into a suitable job are not happy and the changes will address this. Mr Legget says it is unfortunate for those who have already lodged applications for non-relevant job offers and may now be rejected, but there was no alternative.” That is an immigration consultant who has made that particular point.

💬 Pansy Wong: That’s a good one!

I find it very interesting to hear Pansy Wong interjecting, particularly given associations with certain immigration consultants who may be of interest to that member. I will be in a position to identify the main players in the money-go-round that that member is fully aware of very, very soon.

The point that I have made about the difference between good and not-so-good immigration consultants is simply this: the good immigration consultants welcome the Government’s changes in this bill. The reason that they welcome these changes is that they already operate on a recruitment model. They already know about jobs that people can be brought into New Zealand to do. They care about the settlement outcomes for the people whom they bring here. I went to one immigration consultancy company’s launch of its Hunters Club—a club actually set aside for new migrants to New Zealand who are the company’s clients in respect of immigration applications. The interesting thing is that that is not something that the consultancy firm has to do. It does not have to do that, but it cares about the outcomes. That is the immigration consultancy that welcomes this bill. It is speaking to the media today, and it is saying that the Government is on the right track.

The reason that the firm accepts we are on the right track is that it wants what the Government wants. I thought I heard Dail Jones interject to say that that is what New Zealand First wants. That firm wants migrants to hit the ground running, and to use their skills and their talent when they get here. Nobody in this Committee could justify for one minute having skilled and professional migrants coming to this country and taking up jobs as cleaners, cooks, and taxi-drivers. New Zealanders have had a guts full of that sort of treatment. New Zealanders are fair and decent-minded people, who ask why we waste the talent and skills of the people whom we bring here. This policy will make sure that we do not continue to bring to New Zealand people who will not make it here and who have little to offer New Zealand—and, to be blunt, New Zealand has little to offer them. This turn-round in policy is good for migrants and good for New Zealand.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I now assume, in view of the wide-ranging speech made by the Minister, that this is now a wide-ranging debate? We welcome the Minister’s speech, and we look forward to responding to it in detail.

A very serious accusation was made during the Minister’s speech. If she ever suggests that I may have something to do with scams involving immigration consultants I invite her to make that accusation outside the House, and I will see her all the way to the court. She would not be able to legislate away the fruits of my victory. That is totally irresponsible—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You just wait!

I find that offensive. She is smiling away.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. In response to what Pansy Wong said, the comment the Minister has made, “You just wait!”, is unparliamentary and threatening. It is out of character in this Committee. I ask that the Minister apologise for that comment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I withdraw and apologise.

That is why this Minister will never get the immigration portfolio into shape. A Minister should be fair, objective, and accept valid criticism as being nothing personal. I find it very offensive to suggest anything about my conduct that relates to any immigration consultant. I would hastily point out that the Minister used to trumpet—and continues to do so—the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment as one that the Government was happy to work in partnership with. It is now obvious that unless people totally toe the line and agree with the Minister, then she will somehow threaten them with regard to whatever action she may have in mind.

Part 2 is worth taking a close look at. I want to go to clause 6, where applications for residence visas or residence permits made before 20 November 2002 under the general skills category of the Government residence policy that have not been decided are treated as lapsed. One might argue that there are some exceptions, and some of them may not be lapsed. The specific ones are listed under subclause (1)(a), and the first is where “the principal applicant—(i) had claimed points for an offer of employment classed as ‘relevant’ under the Government residence policy applying to that application;”. I invite the Minister to take another call to clarify that word “relevant”. Does it apply simply to people’s qualifications, or to the jobs that they already have? What is this relevancy in relation to a particular application? That is not clear. I do not think that a lot of the applicants will feel very relieved to listen to those criteria when they do not understand how the officials will interpret the word “relevant”.

The other exception is where the principal applicant had claimed 28 points, or more, under the Government residence policy applying to that application. I find that very, very unfair. Basically, it changes the rules after people have already entered the race. As I pointed out at the beginning, it was announced that the number of points required had been reduced from 30 to 27. If the Immigration Service and the Minister of Immigration had been doing their job, they would have said that people who scored below 28 points would not settle well in New Zealand. Why offer the possibility to them? Why put the number of points at below 28 points? People have, in good faith, put in their applications after looking at the immigration website. They ticked the boxes and found they had 27 points, which was the number required by the policy to qualify, and then they suddenly found out yesterday or today that their applications would be considered further only if they had 28 or more points.

I say that changing the rules is not fair. This legislation is retrospective. The Minister has just said that it will not be retrospective, and that clause 3 was introduced only to clarify the legislation. I think that with this particular measure, one can definitely say it is retrospective.

The Minister of Immigration sought to clarify New Zealand First’s policy, and she did a thoroughly bad job of it because she does not support our policy, and we do not support hers. She sought to paint a picture of having done something when she has done nothing. In fact, I have just looked at my colleague Dail Jones’ questioning of her at the select committee at the time the immigration issue came before the select committee.

💬 Darren Hughes: Why wasn’t the member there?

I had unfortunately been expelled from the House—quite wrongfully, in my view. As a consequence, I could not attend. Nevertheless, Dail Jones did a very fine job. He established that Lianne Dalziel, in all her time as the Minister, had got two Cabinet papers ready. She claimed that the idea of registering consultants was a good one, but all she had done was to look at the office in Sydney—the Migration Agents Registration Authority. She said she thought it might have a solution and that now it looked like a real possibility. In the meantime, of course, every sort of fraud, lie, and cheating activity has gone on in the Immigration Service in this country amongst a whole lot of consultants. There has been deception here, there, and everywhere. Chinese have been openly advertising—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: What about Mr Delamere?

Mr Delamere was fired from New Zealand First. He was never a Minister of Immigration under us, so that member should not look at me. But my point is this: how come he has been operating for 3½ years under Lianne Dalziel?

The reality is that there are all sorts of people out there who are openly advertising fraudulent activities in Chinese. The Minister was on the Assignment programme and was asked whether she was aware of any forgeries and frauds. Her answer was “No”. What a joke! Talk about deer in the headlights! That is this Minister.

I have just been on a radio programme with the Minister, and she embarrassed herself again. She thinks that because she can swim under water without breathing for 3 or 4 minutes that that will do in politics, but it will not work. One actually has to be able to say something sensible. The reality is that this Minister is dead scared of getting things wrong. That is why she says in Part 2 that clarification is required so that the New Zealand Immigration Service can regulate and order the manner of processing these applications according to agreed Government departmental policies and priorities. Why would she say that, were it not that she was too scared of making any of those attempts and finding she had again breached the law? That is why she says it. She goes on to say: “Clause 5 ensures that past prioritisation of the processing of applications for visas and permits cannot be challenged in the courts.” This is a member who is meant to be a lawyer. She wants her actions, inactions, and mistakes to be above any legal reproach. I know Labour MPs over there, and I know politicians like that. Mind, one would not call them politicians; one would call them despots, or autocrats.

The Minister wants to be above the law, and I will give an example. She now wants immigration officers to be above the law. If they screw up, there is to be no right of appeal. We can have the biggest bunch of crooks coming into the country as a result of their mistakes, and no one can appeal it. I suppose that is the reason there are so many businesses in Auckland that are run by the triads. Members should go to the bottom of town and find out what is going on down there—the abuse of women, cycled into here for 3 months, then off to Australia because they now have a half-way respectable tourism visa, off to UK for 3 months, and then back home, a total waste. All that is happening under the name of that Minister of Immigration. She laughs and smiles. I know how people like her think. As long as they have the baubles of office, showing some integrity and merit to be in that job has no bearing on them. She might think it is funny, but, after September 11, where on earth would there be any civilized country that would leave such a decision up to an immigration officer? After September 11 and Bali, which fool would leave that decision up to an immigration officer? That fool over there would!

Other countries—including the United States, for example—are reviewing all past applications for the last 6 years to ensure they do not have terrorists, and here is our Minister happy for foreign immigration officials to bring in a foreigner, and his mistake, wanton or otherwise, is beyond reproach. Which fool after September 11 and Bali would allow that to happen to his or her country? It would be one that does not care. The Government does not care. It is caught out now by a policy that 82 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to, and they are opposed to the Minister and her numbers.

In initiating this particular debate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, made a very provocative speech, and the member who has just resumed his seat made some reference to that. But the key point was her explanation to the Committee that we need this legislation because of all the shams, the crooks, and all the bad dealings that are going on out there. Yet the point has been made that on the Assignment programme she was asked the hard question straight, yes or no, whether she knew of any fraudulent, bad practices, and her answer was that no, she did not. She says one thing on television when she is under scrutiny by the nation, yet she comes to the Chamber and says that we need this legislation because of all the sham deals and all the crook situations that exist.

When we analyse this bill, we find it does nothing to assuage our concerns because of clause 5, which relates to validation of process. What on earth does that mean? In other words, however bad something may have been, however wrong, however unjust, by a stroke of a pen the bureaucrats can declare it to be right. Under common law we had such things as writ mandamuses. In other words, if bureaucrats failed to act or failed to follow due process, we could go to the courts with a writ mandamus. But the effect of this clause is that no writ mandamus could possibly succeed against it. It states that failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister—even the Minister—to process an application for a visa or permit, including a residence visa or anything else is just declared to be all right, no matter what mistake has been made. That is totally unsatisfactory. Then we think that perhaps there is some sort of appeal process. But, no, we turn over the page and, lo and behold, all rights of appeal have been expunged.

Clause 5(2) states: “No appeal lies against any decision …” Then subclause (3) states that there is no review processing. So whatever one has done wrong, whatever mistakes, whatever injustices, they will retrospectively be declared to be right, and there are no rights of review and no rights of appeal. That cannot be good legislation. It is totally bad legislation.

The Minister initially said in her speech that she first issued drafting instructions for this bill on 23 June. We made the point that that was only 6 working-days ago. She must have been up in her office listening to a wireless. She heard us challenge her, came rushing down here, and said: “Oh no, that was just part of the bill. The rest of it was under draft long before that.” I tell the Minister that that is not the impression she clearly gave the Chamber when she initially spoke about it. It seems that this Minister is prepared to say anything if she thinks she can get away with it.

I would like to take up the terrible slur the Minister made against Pansy Wong. Even after being forced by the Chair to withdraw and apologise, she kept grinning like some inane canary and giggling to her colleagues on the Labour benches. The Minister is constantly slurring taxi-drivers. Taxi-driving is a very necessary profession. We want good taxi-drivers. They are part of our tourist industry. We want a good class of taxi-driver. However, at every turn that Minister is slamming taxi-drivers and constantly slamming cooks, who are also a critical part of our tourist industry. We need good cooks. The Minister calls them hamburger flippers. She is constantly beating up on cooks and taxi-drivers.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Arrogant socialists.

One of my colleagues has made an observation about arrogant socialists, and we see that so often. So often in our Parliament legislation is slammed through under urgency. It seems to be the trademark of the arrogant socialists.

Clauses 5 and 6 require a lot of scrutiny. They are fundamental and tramp on the rights of people for review of process and for appeal about bad decisions. There are three measures that totally abrogate those rights. Firstly, any mistakes declared to be valid are dealt with under clause 5(1)(a) and (b). Under clause 5(2) there are no rights of appeal; and under clause 5(3) there are no rights of review. I do not recall there ever being such bad legislation.

In context, Part 2 has huge importance in terms of issues of reputation for New Zealand, the Parliament, and the Minister. In speaking on clause 5, I can only but agree with Dail Jones that there are some very great worries about it. That is the provision where validation of processing and lapsing of applications is dealt with. It does seem absolutely extraordinary that it states: “Past order and manner of processing applications deemed valid (1) Any—(a) failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister to process an application for a visa or permit. …; or (b) decision by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister to process or not to process an application for a visa or permit … occurring or made before the commencement of this Act is deemed to have been validly done in accordance with the discretion of a visa officer or immigration officer to determine the order and manner of processing an application.”

In other words, any mistakes that may have been made, are valid. It is absolutely unbelievable. If we are to go to first principles in terms of immigration policy, we want to make sure that that immigration policy is predictable, transparent, certain and fair. We have a situation whereby a lawyer has written into legislation: “Any mistakes that have been made are valid.” It is absolutely unbelievable. All wrong decisions are right decisions. This lawyer is putting that into legislation under urgency.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: A trade-union lawyer.

That is right. We have to make the description very clear. Subclauses (2) and (3) in clause 5 provide for no appeal. They state that no appeal lies against any decision to process or not to process an application for a visa or permit, and that no proceedings may be brought in any court in respect of any failure to process, or any decisions to process.

As a former gynaecologist, if I mucked up, I would expect my patients to be able to go through a process of appeal. Here the Minister has mucked up really badly—20,000 applicants, 46,000 people, and it does not matter. They have no right of appeal and no day in court. As Winston Peters said, that touches on the bounds of autocracy and it touches on the bounds of despotism. One wonders whether the true instincts of the Labour Government are really coming to the fore, because it is saying in law that any mistakes that have been made are valid, all wrong decisions are right, and one has no appeal process through the courts. It is absolutely incredible that a union lawyer wants to put this sort of legislation through the New Zealand Parliament under urgency.

Clause 6 suggests that the cost for application fees that are to be refunded will be about $10.5 million.

Part 2 is symptomatic of a Government that, when it makes a major muck-up, sees its role as bringing down the swift axe of Parliament. It uses Parliament to ride roughshod over people’s rights, to ride roughshod over people who have entered a process in good faith. My colleague Paul Hutchison made reference to clause 5, which makes right any decisions that the bureaucrats have made up to this point—whether or not they were right—and makes valid any mistakes that have been made. That sort of management of a portfolio and that sort of policy are to be absolutely rejected in this Parliament.

I shall focus on clause 6, which deals with the lapsing of certain applications made before 20 November 2002. Lapsing the applications of people who came into the process in good faith is no way to manage an immigration policy and is no way to manage that portfolio. Again, that sort of draconian action is symptomatic of a Government that, when it comes to the crunch, when it has to try to make up for its muck-ups, acts in this arbitrary manner.

I would like the Minister of Immigration to explain part of clause 6, for my benefit and, hopefully, for the benefit of others both inside and outside this House. It provides that applications for residence visas or permits that were made before 20 November 2002, and that have not been decided as at the date of the commencement of this legislation, which will come into play today, tomorrow, or, certainly, within the next 2 or 3 days, are deemed to lapse, unless the applicants satisfy one of the four categories listed—if they wish to stay in the process. One is that the applicant “had claimed points for an offer of employment classed as ‘relevant’ under the Government residence policy applying to that application;”. What is the meaning of the word “relevant” in this context? I would appreciate the Minister taking a call to give us some detail around that. For an officer administering the policy, the word “relevant” can be taken to mean anything that the officer wants it to mean. That is not acceptable in this sort of area. I would like an explanation, because clause 6 does not define what “relevant” means in this area.

There is the issue of applicants who had claimed 28 or more points under the Government residence policy applying for the application. That points system, of course, is a huge issue in itself. Some applicants may have thought, just before the commencement of this bill: “I’m OK. I’m in.”, but there is now a change in the points system. The limit goes up from 27 to 28 points, so they are out in the cold.

I turn to paragraph (iv) of clause (6)(1)(a), which deals with applicants who “had been invited in writing by a visa officer or an immigration officer to apply for a work visa …”. I would like an explanation of that provision. Has it been the policy for some time that visa officers can give invitations, as this suggests, or is it something new? Was it actually invented yesterday, which means these applicants will be cut out any way? Nobody will be able to satisfy that condition.

In terms of lapsing applications, particularly in the context of the way that this Minister has brought this bill into the House, and is rushing it through under urgency, those provisions require explanation.

I move, That the question be now put.

My call on this occasion might be brief because I want to limit it to just a couple of issues. First of all, I want to get some clarification from the Minister of Immigration as to when she gave the instructions and why the instructions were given, with regard to the court decision. From my understanding, on reading this bill, it is clause 6 in Part 2 that refers to the court decision—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Clause 3.

Is the Minister saying that clause 6 does not refer to the court decision? I would have thought that clause 6 was the court decision. She is saying that clause 6 is not the court decision with regard to points and suchlike!

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Clause 3.

She is saying that only clause 3 refers to it. As I read it, clause 6 is the one that must relate to the court decision. Is she saying that the instructions with regard to clause 6 were given a long time ago? Well before the court decision, instructions were given to draft clause 6(1): “All applications for residence visas or residence permits made before 20 November 2002 …”—which is the date, as I recall, that was constantly mentioned in the court case. Was not 20 November 2002 a feature of the court case? So she is telling the Committee, and all the other people involved in this area, that the Government had made up its mind, probably during the process of the court case, before the decision was made, that it was going to do the things set out in clause 6. That is how I understand it. So that point has been cleared up, and it is an interesting point, because that is not the way I had understood it to be. Perhaps those people who are very closely associated with clause 6 will take that into account.

The only other brief point I will make is about the Minister’s reference to Mr Legget and his desire to bring skilled people to New Zealand. Well, that is a New Zealand First policy. The only question is we do not want to see 190,000 people coming into this country, of whom barely 10,000 have any skills, which is what happened in the year ended December 2002. Our policy is skilled people for skilled work, not 190,000 people, 65,000 of whom are here on a temporary basis, and about 75,000 of whom also are not here on a skills basis.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 2 is a substantial part, and I am disappointed to see Government members taking calls purely to seek closure on a matter that deserves sensible consideration by the Committee.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: How sanctimonious!

Mr Cosgrove may think that we should expunge the rights of over 10,000 individual applicants—maybe over 25,000 individual applicants—under the system, without even giving the matter a second thought, without even having a select committee discussion, without even giving it any consideration in the Committee of the whole House. That is what he wants to shut down. We are not going to have a select committee, or give any of the people whose rights are affected by this measure the opportunity to make a submission in the normal way. But Mr Cosgrove thinks it is OK to make only one contribution to this discussion in the Committee stage—that is, to try to stop it. He has not uttered a word of debate, not a word of support for the measure, and has not given an explanation to any of the questions raised by members of three parties opposed to the bill. They are questions that the Minister will not answer, because she does not know the answer. Maybe Mr Cosgrove knows the answers, but he will not take a call and tell us the answers. I want to say that is thuggery; that is not good enough, and that member had better recall that if that is going to be the approach of the Government on matters that affect people’s rights so seriously, then he is in for a very rough ride.

I want to talk about clause 6 because—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, come on!

Why does the member not take a call? [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Order! [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. As you were making an intervention, the chief Government whip offered an insulting reference, which I took to be a reference to the Chair. I think you are entitled to take exception to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Did the member make a comment? I did not catch what was said.

💬 David Benson-Pope: My exception was to the member calling my colleague Mr Cosgrove a thug, which is neither parliamentary nor acceptable.

Madam Chairperson, I was just trying to look after your interests in this matter, but if you want to overlook that kind of intervention on my part, I will move on to my scrutiny of clause 6.

What happens with clause 6 is that a large majority of the 46,000 applications—which the explanatory note tells us are valid applications before the Minister at the moment—are expunged. Those applications are wiped out. If we are going to pass this bill, I think there are some questions the Minister should answer. The first question is why it is that no significant changes were made during the last 4 years, which would have changed the number of people who made applications. The Government has been in office for 4 years; it has had 4 years of officials reports, statistics, and 4 years of opportunity to change the basis on which these people were invited to apply. These are people who have applied in the last 2 years. This Government has been in office for 4 years, and the Minister has done nothing, but she comes along now and says she wants this legislation passed under urgency, with over half of these people having their rights expunged. I want the Minister to say why the Government has done nothing for the 4 years before she came along with this measure.

Why has the Minister not made any changes to the wider programme that is spelt out? Of the percentage of people identified in various categories, 60 percent still are in the skills and business category. In the spirit of the changes contained in clause 6, I would have thought that there would be changes also to the wider framework of the Government’s immigration programme. I think the Minister herself conceded in the earlier debate that there are some valid points to be made. I want to know how it is that we have a bill that expunges people’s rights, particularly in relation to clause 6, but there is no wider indication of a change in policy or strategic thinking that would provide some guidance in this respect.

I also want to go back to clause 5 and ask the Minister whether she will tell us precisely what sort of discretions are envisaged by that part. I read in the explanatory note that priorities will be given to various applicants whose rights are not expunged by clause 5, and those priorities will be identified according to high contribution and settlement potential—that is, those who can make a greater and more immediate contribution to New Zealand’s immigration policy objectives, and are themselves likely to obtain the greater benefit from the decision to migrate. I want to know what that means.

I move, That the question be now put.

What sort of a jackboot Government do we have when we have closure motions on a part with a despotic clause that says that officials can do no wrong? That is what we are expected to pass in this Parliament today—a sort of Roman-type provision that says Caesar can do—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Caesar didn’t wear jackboots.

He did not wear jackboots, but he certainly would have said: “ I can do no wrong”.

What we have in clause 5 is a provision to the effect that it does not matter whether the officials got it all wrong; it does not matter whether they failed; it does not matter whether they made mistakes, because they are deemed to have been right. That is an extraordinary provision for Parliament to pass at any time, let alone under urgency, and with no select committee process. I want to know from the Minister how clause 5 matches up with her promise that Labour would allow for an open Government approach with proper consultative processes and the real involvement of members of Parliament. If that is not a contradiction, I do not know what is.

I come now to clause 6. This is the provision that expunges thousands and thousands of people’s applications. What sort of Mickey Mouse operation is the New Zealand Government running if it is just going to wipe out thousands and thousands of applications? I have this question for the Minister: according to her own notes, why is it that 14,669 applications lodged prior to 20 November 2002 have not yet been processed? That is 8 months ago. What sort of outfit is this Minister of Immigration running? [Interruption] That is out of 20,000, so it means that three-quarters of the applications lodged prior to 20 November last year have not been processed. Is that the sort of “efficient” Government department we would expect to have operating in this nation? It is an embarrassment, and I want to know why.

I also want to know from the Minister how many people are being ripped off by this provision. The papers say she does not know. We do not even know from the Government, under urgency, yet we are being asked to write off all of those people’s rights. We know it is something less than 14,669, but no member opposite is able to tell this Committee just how many people are being done over by this provision. I ask Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Cosgrove why this Parliament should pass a law that will expunge people’s rights when we do not even know how many there are. How many of those people have acted in good faith? How many of those people would make good migrants for this country? How many of those people might want to have some right of appeal? We know none of that, yet not one Government member has been prepared to get to their feet and defend the sort of jackboot legislation that is being passed under urgency by this Parliament. The bill is being passed through all stages, yet it was introduced at only 4 o’clock yesterday.

Again, I put this to the Minister: this Government has been in office for 4 years. Government members have been defending the immigration policy for all that period. Yet, suddenly—overnight—the penny drops, and they have suddenly decided that the policy is all wrong, and that, under urgency, they will change it. I see that the Associate Minister of Immigration, Mr O’Connor, has come into the Chamber. The Minister has not been able to answer the questions, so I wonder whether that member is able to tell the Committee why he believes that Government officials should be deemed by law to have done everything right, even when they have erred and made mistakes. Can some member opposite please explain why we should pass a provision that says that even when officials make mistakes, they have got it right? I also want to know from someone opposite how many people are affected. This Parliament deserves to know.

I move, That the question be now put.

I remind members that in the last 24 hours one Lianne Dalziel has been out telling everybody that her department will be able to process a new regime whereby all applicants will be in receipt of an answer within 3 months.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yeah, right!

Yes, that is right. She was asked this morning how she was going to implement, on the ground, the globalisation priority programme she has, and she said “at trade fairs.” If we look at some facts, we see, for example, that 75 percent of the applicants before 20 November 2002 have not been processed. Some would suggest that given the demands before it, the department is incapable of doing its job. Why would a Minister make those sorts of claims, then try to underpin the whole thing with the slogan: “We’re going to have no more doctors driving taxis.” How many doctors are driving taxis? Two hundred? Four hundred? But it ain’t 72,000.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That was said 10 years ago.

That is right. It was an issue 10 years ago; that is a fact. And do members know how those members got here? They were got into New Zealand by the Labour Party late in 1988-89 and 1990. Most of them got here then—and it was an issue in the 1999 election campaign. I can remember people coming to us and saying: “Why can’t we get ourselves qualifications in New Zealand?” The answer is that they had such an appalling policy back then that one group was approving qualifications, and another group, the Medical Association, was saying it would not register them. It is that simple. But here is my point: the Minister, like her colleagues, thinks that everything can be handled by spin. But she will not get past this part, and that is her inability—and the inability of any of her colleagues—to tell us why one would repose in a civil servant or bureaucrat, and in many cases a foreigner, the capacity to make a decision, and for there to be no rights of appeal against it.

I ask the Minister to tell us how many frauds she has found within her department in the last 12 months. There is a stack of them.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: She probably doesn’t know.

Her department head knew. There is a stack of them. One guy was guilty of 12 that her department knew about. In short, there was a guy sitting outside the High Commission in New Delhi selling visas—not inside; outside.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: At a discount?

Yes—out under the trees. He was successfully selling visas for this country. The reason was that those who would normally go to the High Commission said: “We get a far better deal with this guy outside, and he has been licensed from inside.”

💬 Dail Jones: That’s a trade fair.

Yes, it is.

💬 Dail Jones: Fair trade!

Whether they were getting a fair trade, I do not know, but given the number of frauds within the department, it is ridiculous to say that fraud or otherwise, encouraged or otherwise, this country will stand by that person’s decision and no one will have the right of appeal. One would think that the Minister would get up and, above all, provide some satisfactory explanation as to why she would do that. But more important, we cannot deny the facts when she lapses about 43,000 people, though I am not too sure how many fit that category. What we are certain of is that when the Minister says those people do not live in New Zealand, she does not know what she is talking about. Every year, 190,000 are coming in, in all sorts of categories, such as students. It is all in this document. The Minister should try to get herself some education.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I’ve read it.

Well, she will know that what I say is true. In total, 190,000 people, including international students, are being approved for permanent and temporary residence. How does she know what is going on? She does not know what is going on, and she never will. Her department’s inability to handle the problem is evidenced by the fact that it has a huge backlog. There she was last night looking so forlorn and saying: “Oh, it’s been ongoing for 2 years.” Well, nobody is paying the Minister for being useless—she should resign. If she cannot do her job, she should go, because she has long outserved her usefulness.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: A cracked record!

No, it is not a cracked record. This CD will get more parts to it than one has ever heard. That is a fact, because every day now, telephone books of scandals are being sent to our office, and I have all sorts of people who want to see me in Auckland and tell me about their latest story—Chinese people, Indian and Bangladeshi people.

I move, That the question be now put.

This has been an interesting debate. It is a debate under urgency, and Government members have not been prepared to stand up, take calls, and articulate and support legislation that will infringe the rights of so many people. Not one of them has stood up and taken a call the whole of this morning, when we have been here pointing out that this legislation will affect 46,000 people whose applications will be expunged at the stroke of a pen after the third reading today. That is what will happen. There is no opportunity for anybody to attend a select committee; there are no submissions, no transparency, and no consultation. Yet this is a Government that has said in the past that consultation and open government is what it stands for.

Today the Minister of Immigration is denying those people the opportunity to come to New Zealand in good faith and add value to our community and society as a whole. Today the Government will expunge their rights, and those people will be out. Everything has been overridden. Where is the natural justice when, with a stroke of a pen today, the Government says: “You’re not wanted here; get on your bike, you’re out?” What about all the people who have come from areas like Zimbabwe? Every week in my electorate of Piako I am getting numerous requests from people from Zimbabwe who have come to New Zealand. They have no certainty that they can stay here. What have they got if they go home? They have actually got nothing. Those people are absolutely stateless. They have nothing to go back to. This Government has had an opportunity over the last 4 years to make those people welcome here. They are the kinds of people we want; they can add value. But, no, they are down and out on their luck, and this Government today is saying: “We don’t want you. You can’t add any value to what we are doing. You’re down and out.”

If I look at how this department will operate in the future under Part 2, I see that any mistakes that have been made by officers will be deemed to be valid. The slate will be clean. It is like the Clean Slate Bill that the Justice and Electoral Committee is talking about. This is what will happen here; there will be a clean slate because mistakes, misdemeanours, or whatever will be deemed to be valid. I do not know of anybody or any organisation that does not have to account for its actions. But clause 5 of this bill is headed: “Past order and manner of processing applications deemed valid”. Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency that one would expect? If I am employing somebody, then I would expect him or her to front up, and to rectify anything that is not up to par. But under clause 5 that has been wiped.

Clause 5 goes on to say in subclause (2) that there will be no appeals against any decision to process or not to process an application for a visa or a permit. There is actually no appeal process. What about those 46,000 people whom I mentioned before? There is no appeal process. They cannot appeal. Subclause (3) states that no review proceedings may be brought in court in respect of any failure in the process. Once again, there are no opportunities for those people. People want their day in court, but that is being denied by this clause. They are being denied their day in court. As I asked earlier: where is the natural justice? This measure is going to affect 20,000 applications, or 46,000 people, whose livelihood is at stake. This Government is absolutely insensitive to what is required.

Clause 6 is headed: “Lapsing of certain applications made before 20 November 2002”. This Government has been in power now for 4 years. Why is the Government doing this under urgency today? We are opposed to this.

I move, That the question be now put.