Immigration Amendment Bill

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I thank members of the House who, although they did not agree with the provisions of the bill, allowed it to include an out-of-scope Supplementary Order Paper. This amendment was required to address a serious situation where a High Court ruling enabled the release from detention of two individuals who were unlawfully in New Zealand and awaiting removal. The only reason they were still in New Zealand was that we were unable to obtain travel documents for them because, in both cases, they refused to sign applications for them. The fact that both were released without conditions is of significant concern. It occurred because there was no basis to detain them, so there was no basis to impose conditions on them, either. The fact that the judge said the writ of habeas corpus was issued “albeit with some reluctance” was a significant signal from the court that it was up to Parliament to fix this.

Section 60 came into force in 1999, when National was changing the rules around removals from New Zealand. The 3-month limitation was believed to be a sufficient balance between the time needed to obtain travel documents and the amount of time someone would be detained. No one contemplated someone holding out for 3 months—effectively, preventing that person’s removal and effecting that person’s freedom. I hope the lawyers who successfully argued for this loophole are satisfied at the result of their work and at what they have achieved for their clients.

I hope that, in light of the changes that have been brought in, the Green Party stops saying this amendment is indefinite detention. It is not. It is a warrant of commitment that can be renewed on a 30-day basis by a court. The court retains the ability to consider exceptional circumstances, even though it is the action or inaction of the individual concerned that means he or she cannot be removed. If the particular individuals concerned had signed their applications, they would not be in detention—they would be gone—and, if certain charges were proven, maybe a woman would not be lying critically ill in hospital today. I am not blaming anyone for that; it would be wrong to do so. I would say, though, that members of the Opposition would do that if it were the other way round—they would blame this Government if we had been responsible for bringing in section 60. But it is not a case of fault; nobody could have foreseen that this would occur.

The only person in the Committee stage of this bill who behaved appallingly was the Hon Murray McCully, and I use the word “Hon” with some difficulty. I spoke to him before Supplementary Order Paper 131 was moved, and he said that I could trust him, that I could approach him on matters like this, and that I should feel confident about doing so, because the National Party would support matters such as this. What did he do? We brought it to the House, and, yes, he supported it, but he spent his entire speech absolutely trying to tear strips off me for taking 3 weeks to bring a measure before the House. Well, there was no earlier opportunity at which Parliament could have addressed the matter. I think his lack of graciousness is reflected by the fact that every other member in this House, including the Hon Richard Prebble, participated in a really good debate. Dail Jones, Lockwood Smith, and Pansy Wong all contributed to a really good debate, and where we disagreed, even that was dealt with in a very reasonable manner. Mr McCully really set himself apart as somebody who only plays politics with these matters. He does not know anything about the immigration portfolio. He has no history in it, nor any knowledge of it. He does not know anything about immigration law. He has used this issue to rubbish the Government and to pursue his own political agenda, and I say shame on him.

I am very resentful of comments made by the Green Party, and I want to highlight those, because I would have expected better from the Greens. They say that this is a measure designed to ensure that individuals are subject to racism and selective discrimination, and that the discretionary language that is used in the legislation is evidence of that. I pointed out in the Committee stage that the bill itself simply uses the language of the existing Act; the existing Act uses the language of discretion. It says that any residence visa or permit is at the discretion of the Minister of Immigration. That is the way the legislation has been written for years and years, across Governments. So the bill is simply adopting that same language.

I do not particularly like the language of discretion, because it creates an impression that is not reflected in practice, so I will repeat what I said in the Committee stage, which is that there will be a complete review of the Immigration Act next year. I am inviting parties to play a role in that. I do want to change the language of the legislation, but I also want to ensure we adopt a very sensible approach, because, as we have seen in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that we had to include in this legislation, there are people who will say anything, do anything, try anything, cheat anything, and defraud anything to stay in this country, whether or not they are entitled to. They remain the minority. The vast majority of migrants who come to this country are good, decent, hard-working people who deserve to be applauded in this House for their efforts, and not diminished, as they are by the New Zealand First Party.

I think it is very, very important for us to understand that the legislation we are putting through is entirely focused on improving outcomes for skilled migrants and for New Zealand. Settlement outcomes will now drive the skilled immigration part of the programme.

I will finish with a quote that my colleague started to read out in the second reading of this bill. The email he was reading from continues: “I occasionally work as a volunteer at an immigrant support group just outside Wellington. That experience really brings home what the previous policies have allowed to happen: a Russian neurosurgeon who can’t get a job as anything other than the shelf-stacker at Woolworths because he can’t speak English to conversational level; accountants, lawyers, all manner of skilled professionals, all with the same problem. I can give these people advice in their group sessions, but the reality is that their residency allowed them to move to a country where they could not carry on with their lives with the same level of professional status as they previously held. It’s actually quite soul-destroying to be powerless to help these people. I would defy any commentator or journalist who is criticising your latest policy to join me at a community church in Johnsonville and look into the eyes of the 30 to 40 well-educated people who dreamt of their new life in New Zealand, who can no longer hold the same status in their local communities, whose egos have been shattered, whose self-confidence is diminished, and whose faith in New Zealand is fading.” This policy is good for skilled migrants, and it is good for New Zealand.

The Minister of Immigration, who has just resumed her seat, spent most of her third reading speech dwelling on the provisions of clause 15A, which amends section 60(2) of the principal Act. She seemed to be in something of a blue funk about the fact that I had made some unflattering references to her in the Committee stage of the bill, but she does not seem to have listened very carefully to what was said, and I will repeat some of those things today, given this the third reading debate. Hopefully, she will learn a lesson from it.

Like other members, National Party members did support the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that was outside the scope of the original bill. I do not dispute the outline of facts as provided by the Minister, nor, indeed, do I disagree with her chiding certain members of the legal profession for the role they have played in this regard. What I do say to the Minister is that if she is going to accuse people of playing politics in these matters, she needs to look in a mirror, because the Supplementary Order Paper that we were told was so urgent was given to members of the National Party on the morning of the day on which the Government intended to introduce it to the House. It was given to Mr Peters of New Zealand First on the morning of its introduction, and I understand that it was given to the ACT party and to Mr Prebble on the morning of its introduction, yet I have been told that it was given to United Future—the Government’s very reliable lackey—some weeks in advance. The message I want to give to this Minister and to other Ministers is that on important matters of national security, on important matters that attend our national interest, Ministers can get cooperation by asking early and asking honestly for the cooperation of members on this side of the House. But they will not get fulsome cooperation, they will not receive the support they might otherwise get, if they treat parties differently.

The matter at the heart of clause 15A is an important matter. I absolutely agree with the Minister about it, and say with all sincerity that we could have dealt with it earlier. It was more than 3 weeks since the time of Justice Chambers’ decision when this matter came to the House, and I say to the Minister, as I said in the Committee stage, that she must have been told by her counsel that they were going to lose that court case. It was a lay down misère . Anybody who looked at Justice Chambers’ decision could see that it was correct, and could see that Parliament might have left an unintentional loophole when it dealt with the matter on an earlier occasion. So it was only correct that we should deal with that matter with due expedition.

I say to the Minister again that it could have been dealt with earlier. The cooperation that she sought would have been forthcoming from this quarter, and I am sure that it would have been forthcoming from other quarters—as it finally was. But I take exception to being treated differently from the United Future party and, presumably, from the Greens on a matter such as this. If it is a matter of national interest, and if the Minister wants us to put politics to one side, then she must deal with all parties even-handedly and equally. She failed to do that. If she expects to be treated with any charity in the House in future on these matters, then she had better rethink the way in which she approaches them. If these matters are important enough to require members to put politics aside, then, first, the Minister must put politics aside in making an approach to members of other political parties to seek their cooperation. I will have no sleepless nights from her taking offence at some of my less charitable comments about her stewardship of this particular Supplementary Order Paper, but I promise her that she will have some very sleepless nights in future if that is the way she goes about dealing with matters that are so important to our national interest.

It is also worthy of note that this matter, which was considered so important that we were required to put aside party politics, was being dealt with while concurrently in this House this Minister was trying to use the procedures of the House to avoid giving straight and honest answers to questions that, by any measurement, are important questions. I have never seen, in my time in this House, a memorandum with an assertion by an official that there was an agreement to “lie in unison”. The Minister herself has said that if it were the case that there was a conspiracy, then she must have been a part of it—part of an agreement to lie in unison. So the Minister asks us to put to one side—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill, which has nothing to do with the matter that the member is now addressing.

Speaking to the point of order, I want to say that the Minister spent a good part of her speech talking about the response from Opposition members to her request for cooperation in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 131, which was outside the scope of the original bill. It is perfectly in order for me to relate to the House the circumstances and wider environment in which that request was received and dealt with.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members. I was getting a little concerned about the width of the speech, and that is why I tried visually to bring the member back to the bill.

The Minister asks too much of members of this House if she, on the one hand, is going to approach members of other parties, say that this matter is so important that she wants to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the original bill, and ask for their cooperation in doing so, yet, on the other hand, on a matter that causes very great trouble to members of this House, is dealing with members on a less than even-handed and open basis. I say to the Minister, again, that if she wants cooperation on such matters, then she has to revise the way in which she deals with her responses to questions on matters of considerable legitimate public interest.

In relation to this bill, I want to refer in particular—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I didn’t have to let you know anything. It was a matter of courtesy that I let you know.

If the Minister wants cooperation, she has to consult members. If she wants members to take a non-partisan approach to a matter of considerable national interest, then she has to revise the way she does business. She went—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Well, I won’t do that with the National Party again.

The Minister can choose whatever method she wants, but when she has made her bed, she has to lie on it, and I tell her she should reflect on that.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What you said on the phone wasn’t what you said in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Mr McCully has the floor.

If the Minister would reflect on the fact that she did not tell me she had approached other political parties some weeks in advance, then she might put a different complexion on this matter.

I want to refer in particular to clause 5, which deals with the powers of the Minister and the powers of Immigration Service officers. Section 10(3), in clause 5 states that there is to be no recourse to review proceedings in the court in relation to decisions about visas, or in relation to decisions of the Residence Review Board. In clause 6 we find a new section 10A, to be inserted in the principal Act, that has wide-ranging powers for the Minister and immigration officers that make it clear there is to be no review of the decisions of the Minister or officers of the Immigration Service in relation to invitations to apply for visas, or to any of the other provisions of this Act.

I say to the Minister that, with these extensive powers and protections being granted to the Minister and to her officials, members of the public will be looking to be reassured that the Minister and those officials will use those powers, and the protections that go with those powers, in a way that is in the public interest, and in a way that is professional and beyond reproach. When they see that there are memos floating around the most senior offices of the Immigration Service asserting that there is an agreement to “lie in unison”, they will look at section 10(3) in clause 5, and subsections (1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) of section 10A in clause 6, and will ask members of Parliament whether we are sure that this Minister and these officials should receive these powers and these protections from review by the courts of this land. Those are questions that remain unanswered in this House today, as they have been through the earlier stages of the bill.

I confess I am a little bemused by the response of the member who has just concluded his speech, on two counts. The first is that the Government was under absolutely no obligation under the Standing Orders to consult him or any other party on Supplementary Order Paper 131. The fact that this Minister of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, did so was purely a matter of courtesy. It is instructive to find how that courtesy is received in the House. I congratulate the Minister on consulting the other parties.

The second and more important reason that I am bemused by the National Party response is that, if one takes its rhetoric at face value, for the life of me I cannot imagine why it would not support this bill. This bill does nothing to increase the number of immigrants, but it increases the quality of the contribution of our immigrants to the growth of this nation’s wealth. This is all about building skills. It is a win-win because it also means that immigrants are able to exercise the skills that they bring into our country. My electorate of New Lynn must be the luckiest place on earth. We have trained scientists delivering Foodtown pamphlets, and trained doctors driving taxis. It must be heaven on earth if we can afford such high-powered deliverers and taxi-drivers. Could it possibly be that the immigration framework we inherited from the previous Government allowed people into the country, then forgot about them, and did not integrate them into the workforce? This bill is overdue. I recommend its speedy passage through the House.

There is nothing like listening to someone who is so naive that he knows nothing about the formation of policy. Those very same people were being allowed into the country in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990—and he tried to come to this House today with a clean pair of hands and say that he and his colleagues are fixing that up. Does he not understand what happened in the late 1980s, how it was repeated by the previous National Government, how it became an issue at the 1996 election, and how Labour went on after it came to power to fill this country with 72,500 people per year? Even though he is a new member, naivety is not a good enough excuse for him to use.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Wrong again!

Right again! It is all in the facts and figures, but, of course, Lianne Dalziel images somebody who is useless, inept, bungling, and ineffectual. Who said on the Assignment programme that she knew of no fraud in immigration? The website was then opened in front of her eyes, and she was like a possum in the headlights. Supplementary Order Paper 131 goes a miniscule way in the right direction, and we support that.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Those people have all been convicted.

Do members notice how much Lianne Dalziel shouts all the way through my speeches? She is so negligent, hopeless, conceited, big-headed, supercilious, egotistical, and self-important that she thinks she can match us on this. We support the principle of the Supplementary Order Paper but we do not support the bill. Lianne Dalziel is also the person who came into the House today and said the majority of immigrants are good, hard-working people. Is that not great! What about the massive minority, the thousands and thousands, who are not like that? What about the 12,000 in Auckland alone who are on welfare? What about the thousands who fill the State homes in Auckland that New Zealanders should be living in? What about the rack-renting immigrant up there—and there are numerous ones like him—who has 14 poor Asian students paying $175 a week in a 3-bedroom home? He is in a Housing New Zealand Corporation house, paying $65 a week, with State aid for housing support. That just stinks! This woman from Christchurch knows nothing about the real circumstances in this country. She laughs and giggles, but she gives it all away by shouting out when I am talking. She is indifferent, negligent, unfeeling, untrustworthy, and perfidious.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Ha, ha!

This woman laughs, even though some New Zealand women have just been infected with AIDS by someone whom she allowed into the country. He has been here for 2 years. The riff-raff from the rest of the world whom no one else will have, Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark welcome—and Lianne Dalziel laughs.

I want all New Zealanders who are listening to this debate today to remember this, every time that they cannot get a hip operation, a cataract operation, or any fairness in their country. About their own taxes, they should remember the Prime Minister and Lianne Dalziel, because they have been tossing money around like an eight-armed octopus to every foreigner—to everybody but someone born here. In some other countries that would be called treason or treachery. Lianne Dalziel has brought tens and tens of thousands of people here. How many of the immigrants that the Minister has brought here are actually employed today? Is it half of them?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: More than that!

I am sorry, it is not more than that. That shows how ignorant she is. It is not even 20 percent, because they come with children and grandparents. I know people who have come here and brought eight adults here, even though they have never left the benefit.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Give me an example.

It is no use running to her. She accused Murray McCully of not understanding immigration, but this woman knows nothing about her portfolio. Every time that Lianne Dalziel is told by the media or by me what is going wrong in her portfolio, she says she will look into it and have an investigation.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Give me the evidence.

What is the Minister doing in her job if I have to find the evidence for her?

💬 Pita Paraone: It’s in the papers!

The Minister should pick up any Chinese-language newspaper; she would find it is all there—the advertised frauds for the English-language test. It is all advertised. This Minister has done nothing about it. She has not got off her half acre and done a thing. The smug, arrogant way that she conducts the affairs of her portfolio, which is paid for by taxpayers, knows no bounds.

Why would we want the flotsam and jetsam that drifts into the country, like that Zimbabwean the other day? It is not just him. What about the Saudi Arabian who tried to falsify his pilot exams? That was on TV3 last night. What about the guy who was being sent back to Singapore and claimed there was a bomb on the plane? This country is just going amuck because of a useless, hopeless Prime Minister who has predicated the whole economy on massive immigration.

It is all in the Reserve Bank governor’s report today. He says he cannot bring interest rates down for the benefit of ordinary New Zealanders, because house prices are fuelling inflation in Auckland. Why should a poor farmer, who is producing on the land, pay $60,000 or $70,000 by way of losses because of a rack-renter and property speculator in Auckland? This is a rotten economy for being run in that way, and it is being run for the benefit of foreigners—people who do not belong here—who, in the massive main, are not employed here. The Minister’s own department told her last August, after the election, that some of those people will not be employed in our economy for the next 25 years.

I have a message for some of the Māori members of this Parliament. They should not talk to me about tino rangatiratanga while they support the Labour Party. They should not dare to talk to me about Māori mana and tino rangatiratanga whilst they cram this country with foreigners—in greater numbers now, after 10 years, than the whole Māori population after 1,000 years. The Māori members should stop that humbug. I ask them not to tell me about tino rangatiratanga and what will be done at all the hui, when right now this country is being overrun by a population from abroad that is greater in numbers than Māori, though they may have been here for 1,000 years.

This arrogant Minister and the Prime Minister will not get away with it at the next election. They think they have a measure in the Supplementary Order Paper whereby somehow they can force a guy to sign his passport photo. What a redeeming feature that is for this Government! The whole immigration picture is unparalleled anywhere in the world; it is rotten to the core. In Auckland there is all sorts of prostitution going on, and abuse of women—and Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark call themselves feminists! Mind you, they are very weird feminists. But I hope, and it is a sad hope, that when those poor women whom a foreigner—a toerag who should never have been here in the first place—has infected with HIV start to live awful lives, their families will remember Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark, and I hope they will remember David Benson-Pope and the United Future party. I hope they will remember every one of these scumbags who have allowed that to happen. All those victims had better look around really hard, and ask themselves how that person ever got into this country to assault them.

Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark are so naive that they do not realise we have African immigrants here—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask the Minister to desist from interjecting, please.

One could train a parrot to be the Minister of Immigration. All it would have to say is “Lianne wants a cracker. Lianne wants a cracker.” She sits on her perch and she parrots that there is no fraud. How deceitful is that? With a bit more intelligence and training Lianne Dalziel could become a circus clown, but she is not fit to be the Minister responsible for immigration. The Prime Minister is not fit for her office either, given that the key determinant of her responsibility is the health and security of every New Zealand citizen.

Helen Clark and Lianne Dalziel have been derelict in terms of their responsibilities; they have totally abandoned them. The North Shore Hospital and Auckland Hospital are reeking of and packed to the gunwales with Third World immigrants and Third World diseases, with 70 percent—two-thirds and more—of the TB patients being immigrants coming from overseas. Why was a New Zealand woman tossed out of a hospital 2 hours after giving birth to a baby in the middle of the night—at 4.05 a.m.? It was because the hospital was crammed full with foreigners. Government members should make no mistake about this: we will tell every New Zealander just what a rotten administration that Minister is involved with. The first thing New Zealanders will do is to get rid of her.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to this bill. I intend to respond to many of the points just made by the right honourable gentleman. But first, let me tell members what happened in the Committee stage, because members would not have picked that up from Mr Peters’ contribution and I want to start with a positive statement about how the bill was debated.

I appreciated the fact that the Minister of Immigration participated during the Committee stage of the bill. Not only did she participate, but she made some useful contributions in reply to points that were made, so we had a genuine debate about the bill. I appreciated that because there is a tradition coming into this House of Ministers not participating in the Committee stage, and that denigrates the whole of Parliament. In fact, some Ministers go so far as not even to sit in the chair, but to put in another Minister who has no knowledge of the legislation. I think there is a duty on the Government to debate legislation. I tell Mr Cunliffe, who spoke earlier, that he did not make a proper contribution. He just indicated exactly the point that I am making. He did not debate this bill. I hope that a Government member will get up and speak about this bill, because we should have the bill itself debated.

I also tell the Minister that I appreciated the offer that she made to me—and I suppose she made it to other parties—to allow me to speak to officials about Supplementary Order Paper 131, which she introduced. I took advantage of that. Up until then, I had been considering voting against that Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for that is that the Supplementary Order Paper gives immigration officials very great powers to be able to hold people in jail, and in a free society Parliament has been very reluctant to do that. I was not sure, from looking at the Supplementary Order Paper, whether it went further than was required.

However, after talking to the officials I am satisfied that it does not do so, and that it is necessary when a person has been ordered to leave the country. I understand that countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq—although I would like to think that the Americans will fix this—refuse to issue papers until a person signs for them. Those countries ought to take responsibility for their own nations. In those circumstances I think that it is reasonable that this Parliament says to officials that if a person in that position is ordered by the courts to leave the country and he or she refuses to sign the necessary papers, he or she should be held in jail.

I now turn to a criticism of the Minister. When it became obvious that the Minister knew about the Supplementary Order Paper a month ago—and apparently she did consult United Future—I think that she should have consulted the National Party and other parties in Parliament. It is a regrettable tradition under MMP that that is not happening. Mr Cunliffe can say that there is no requirement under the Standing Orders for a Minister to do that. I say, so what! I tell that member that in that situation there are parliamentary conventions whereby members should participate in discussing the matter. For me to receive a copy of the Supplementary Order Paper only 3 hours before the debate—and I think it was the same for New Zealand First—was not satisfactory. That reflects upon us as parliamentarians. If we had had earlier notice, we would have been able to look at the Supplementary Order Paper, and I might have been able to discuss the matter properly with my caucus. I tell that Minister and other Ministers that, as a whole, I believe that most parliamentarians want the immigration system to have some integrity. ACT would have supported that. I say, in a parliamentary sense, that if Mr Cunliffe ever finds himself in that situation again he should circulate the Supplementary Order Paper.

I now turn to the bill itself. I shall deal with Mr Peters’ comments, because in my view part of his anger is that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the sorts of statements he has been making for the last year. The bill moves away from a points system to one that will enable the Government to discriminate. How do I know that? I was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but a member from New Zealand First was. The committee’s report to the House stated that one of the reasons it did not like the bill was that it thought people could be discriminated against. How could they be discriminated against? They could be racially discriminated against. In fact, under the bill, foreigners could be discriminated against, and Mr Peters made it quite clear in his speech that that is something he wants this Government to do.

I realise that immigration is a very difficult issue, because we make arbitrary decisions. Far more people want to come to New Zealand than we will ever accept, and that is a good situation. We have to work out a way in which people will be selected. All the immigration nations, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have moved away from the sort of system that this bill moves back to, where priority is given to things like jobs. When one says that jobs should have priority, it sounds good. But, as I pointed out in the Committee stage, one of the skill areas where there is a critical shortage is truck driving. Will that be included? No, apparently it will not be; the Minister told us that truck driving would not be included. But what does happen, and used to happen—and I have been in this House long enough to know the old immigration system—is that the same consultants who help people to work out their points under the points system will find it much easier to get people into the country by finding them jobs. Will they be bogus jobs? No, they may be real jobs. They may even be jobs in Invercargill, which apparently are of higher priority than jobs in Auckland. Will the jobs last? Of course they will not. Will there be an internal passport system whereby a person has to stay in Invercargill? Of course there will not be.

The sort of law that has been put forward in this bill will not result in a better immigration system. I do think that it will discriminate against the Chinese. I do think that it will result in fewer Chinese people coming to New Zealand, and that that is one of the objectives of the Government. Personally, I do not think that it is a good idea. I believe—contrary to Mr Peters—that the immigrants who have come to this country have done a great job.

Mr Peters gave us as an example the terrible things that were happening at North Shore Hospital. I can speak with some authority about North Shore Hospital; I spent a week in it after the last election. I had pneumonia, was taken to North Shore Hospital, and was treated very well. Mr Peters said that North Shore Hospital—and I think I am quoting him correctly—is full of foreigners. That is correct. North Shore Hospital is most certainly full of foreigners; in fact, it is a positive United Nations. All but one of the doctors who treated me, and treated me extremely well, were immigrants. They were not all driving taxis. They were treating me. My physiotherapist was—I think the term is “Cape Coloured”; that is probably politically incorrect now, but the ACT party does not worry about things like that—from South Africa, and she was a very, very competent physiotherapist. The nurses also came from around the world, including the Pacific. Did I feel that I received inferior treatment at North Shore Hospital? No, I did not.

I advise the House that but for immigration we would literally be in the shit. Our sewerage schemes around New Zealand are being run by engineers from around the world, and many of them are South Africans. Indeed, if one looks at skill after skill in this country, one sees that the people concerned come from overseas. The New Zealand First Party told us in the Committee stage—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is that?

It is because we have never had enough skilled people.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ours have left; that’s why.

That is true. They did leave, and a lot of them left because of the policies previously introduced by that member. A lot of them left because of the policies of successive Governments. I accept, and the ACT party does, that the best immigrants to come into New Zealand would be New Zealanders. Does this bill help to do that? No, it does not. All the policies put forward by Mr Peters will not get Auckland’s traffic going. The reason Auckland roads are jammed is that this Parliament has not voted enough money for roading. We do not have a decent planning scheme, and we probably need some immigrants to tell us about one, instead of the lunatic measures that we have.

Then the member made a despicable appeal to Māori, as though they were affected by immigration, and talked about crime. I ask Mr Peters what the population make-up of our prisons is. Is it made up of the foreigners whom he is referring to? Has he read the statistics? He says he has. What is it, Mr Peters? The member is not prepared to answer that, because he and I know that the prison population is 52 percent Māori. What is he doing about that? That is a disgraceful statistic, and we should do something about it. Blaming crime on foreigners does no credit to New Zealand First.

I say to the House that I will vote against this bill because I actually think that the Labour Government is not standing up to Mr Peters. I am quite prepared to do that. I say that this House and this country do not need this bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. I notice that we are the only party to support the Government on this bill. I was very concerned when I heard Mr Peters speaking on immigration policy, because I get upset when words are spoken that bring division to our nation, and when we start to put one person against another, and deal with issues rather than the actual situations we face.

What is so wrong about trying to move forward with a residence policy that allows New Zealanders to accept those immigrants who will make a positive contribution to this country? Nobody doubts that we need immigration in this country. The law we are passing today is bringing about many changes that New Zealand First proclaimed it wanted. It makes so much sense to move from a system dictated by a “first come, first served” approach to one that puts the people most likely to integrate successfully into New Zealand society at the head of the queue. Otherwise, the people we want might be stuck at the back of the queue for 2 years, and what sense does that make to Mr Peters? They might lose their job offers and go somewhere else that can offer them quicker entry. At the same time, we would be letting people at the front of the queue get in first, when they might not have a relevant job offer, and when they cannot find work be more likely to be a drain on the taxpayer through the benefit system.

That is why we are supporting this legislation, and why it will be passed. To let people come out here without proper work is unfair to them, as it makes it much more difficult for them to integrate into New Zealand society.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I agree.

Good, I am glad the member agrees.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are they doing here?

We are passing this legislation to make it better, which was New Zealand First policy.

I have heard some members talk about the fact that under the current system people hoping to come and live in New Zealand have had to put their lives on hold for as long as 2 years before they hear the outcome of their applications. I have no doubt that this is the case, but to claim that this bill would have the same impact shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what this legislation will do. After expressing interest in applying for residency, those who do not receive an invitation to apply within 3 months are lapsed from the system—based on the information they submitted. Those are people who would not settle easily into this country. Letting them know within 3 months that they have not been accepted must surely be better than keeping their lives on hold for 2 years.

I believe it is a privilege to be able to come and live in New Zealand, not a right. I was in Australia not so long ago and spoke to a young waitress serving at the table. She thought, woe is me, that I was an Australian, and she actually thanked me for allowing her into Australia. I thought that was a refreshing attitude. People should not come in as of right, but because they recognise that it is a privilege to come to another nation.

This legislation will help discern those who are better people for our nation. This process also means that those who are invited to apply will wait for no more than 3 months to hear whether they have progressed to the next stage. Just because someone has lapsed from the system does not mean that he or she cannot try again. The fact that a person will know his or her status within 3 months gives that person more time to improve his or her chances—by acquiring a relevant job offer, for example.

One of the problems under the old system was that in waiting up to 2 years for residency, an applicant who had a job offer might have lost it because the employer was sick of waiting. In the case of university lecturers coming from overseas, for example, entire courses have had to be delayed because their applications were taking too long. This bill will change that. Under this bill, we should be able to pick up on those people from the start and say: “Right, this person will help our country move forward, so let’s make sure he or she gets priority.” That has to be common sense in anyone’s language.

From reading the select committee report, it is pretty clear that even the other parties in the House that are voting against the bill do not have a problem with the idea that we should be an active recruiter rather than a passive receiver of immigrants. New Zealanders have gone to many nations all over this world and made a difference with the skills and talents they have put forward. I want people who can make a difference to this nation to feel free to come back and be welcomed, not to be discriminated against on race, colour, or any other thing. They should feel part of New Zealand and able to call it home. We are going to build a great nation in New Zealand, and it will be made up of many races, many cultures, and many people. We will put systems in place that will make that possible.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who said?

I say to Mr Peters that systems are not perfect, but we are in the process of changing the system to bring improvement. If we do not bring improvement or change anything, we will not get a different result. United Future believes that it will get a different result, because we stand by this legislation to make a difference to this nation, to bring good people into this nation, and to create a great nation in the days that lie ahead. We are glad that we are brave enough and bold enough to support this legislation at this time.

National recognises that there is a need to match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy, but its objection is that it can be done in a more transparent manner than this bill proposes. [Interruption] Is the member going to take a point of order? I agree that the more transparency the better, but I have yet to see any proposal from National members as to how that could be achieved. I am sure they understand that the one thing about immigration policy—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member invited me to raise a point of order, and I do so now. I like a good joke, and I seek an extension of time for this speech.

💬 Dail Jones: 5 minutes?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, 5 minutes.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who was speaking was giving a strong speech and a good speech, and I think you should rebuke Mr Peters for breaking it up. If he is sincere and wants to move an extension of time, he should do so at the end of the speech. It is extremely unparliamentary for a member to break up a speech just because he or she does not like it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Mr Prebble is quite right, and I thank him for that.

I am sure they understand that, unlike other portfolio areas where a lot of substance is contained in the legislation, the real substance of immigration policy is contained in the criteria that is collected in the manual that immigration officers use when assessing applications. This bill facilitates that process, rather than spelling out what immigration policy will be. That does limit the degree of transparency, and therefore my challenge to the Government is to communicate as openly as possible with potential applicants, other interested parties, and the public, about how its immigration policy will be applied. Despite our disagreement over the bill, I am sure that the National Party and the Green Party will join me in urging the Minister to follow that path.

Part of that information campaign must include ensuring that applicants have accurate expectations about their chances of success. In the course of assessing an applicant’s potential, immigration officials must ensure that applicants have realistic expectations about what they will find when they come here. As much as we think that our country is the greatest in the world, we need to dispel the misconception spread by some consultants that its streets are paved with gold.

I also think it is important that we get more information about the kinds of skills that are deemed to be in short supply. Under the Government’s proposed policy, bonus points will be available to applicants who hold a skills set that is in demand here, and for a job offer that is relevant to those skills—particularly if it is located in a region that is experiencing shortages.

I would think that many people are surprised, as I certainly am, that New Zealand First does not support this bill. There can be absolutely no doubt that this bill conforms to its manifesto at the last election, which said that New Zealand would give greater priority to immigrants who have the “skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” I feel sorry for New Zealand First voters that they have been betrayed in this way, but United Future has come to the rescue. That party’s excuse that it will not support the bill because the overall number of immigrants will remain the same just does not wash, because that is right outside the scope of this bill. Even if New Zealand First cannot achieve that in this bill, it should at least follow through on something it has pledged to its voters.

I support this bill because it is not about reducing the number of immigrants as part of some knee-jerk response to the cultural insecurity of New Zealanders. Rather, it is about the Government being a lot smarter about the people we accept as residents. United Future is in favour of immigration, and we are pleased that the overall level of migrants will be sustained for the next 3 years. But in the longer term we need to stop dealing just with immigration policy and high inflation, as a more strategic approach would be to see this as just one part of an overarching population policy. Those who want to drastically cut the number of immigrants fail to recognise that in the light of an ageing population and the slowing birth rate, we need to maintain a sizeable working population to fund our State services.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said New Zealanders liked a joke, and those who were listening would want me to move an extension of time for that last speaker. I would like to see him read his speech a second time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

I know it would be normal at this point for me to make a very short contribution, but I will not do that. In my 7 years in this House, I have heard some speeches expressed in terms that I have found difficult to comprehend. The speech we heard today from Winston Peters—and I would not dare to use the words “right honourable”, because they do not belong next to those two words—was the most despicable, most terrible speech—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That little traitor might not deserve the words, but I do, and I have worked for them. So he will use them, or he will be out of this House. That is my point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The point of order is correctly raised. What the speaker said could be taken as a reflection on Mr Peters. I was going to say earlier on that frivolous points of order will not be raised. In the case of Paul Adams, of course, he invited it. We have had a very robust debate this afternoon, and I encourage that. It is meant to be interactive. Almost without exception, speakers have been provocative, but so far I think the debate is going pretty well.

I will come back to the member for Tauranga’s speech in few moments.

Firstly, I want to do something that also is quite rare, and that is agree with some of the points made by the Hon Richard Prebble. Richard Prebble asked Government members to defend this bill, and I would like to say to him that the viability of this bill will be proven in the next year—not by speeches made in this House. I also say to him—as he would have experienced when meeting constituents who have come to this country over the last 10 or 12 years—that it has been extraordinarily difficult for those people to settle in this country and participate in the work they have been trained for and expect to be able to carry out when they come here. It is a terrible shame that a great many of those people have the skills, the training, the education, and the will to work for the benefit of New Zealand, but are not able to. If it is a matter of dealing with our immigration law to try to stop that happening again in the future, then that is why this bill should be supported. Yes, it has to be tested to see whether it will work, but I believe it is a better piece of legislation, and a better system, than that which we are trying to deal with as a Government at the moment.

Like Mr Prebble, I have also spent a lot of time in the public health system this last 15 to 16 months, though not as a patient. In the last couple of weeks, for instance, I saw a lot of people of all races who were patients in Auckland Hospital. An awful lot of the staff of that hospital have been educated and trained overseas, and have worked overseas, and are now giving their efforts to keep New Zealanders healthy, to help New Zealanders who are ill, and to help people who need their assistance.

In the one ward that my wife was in, I probably saw two New Zealand - trained nurses in the entire 7 days. There were others there, but in terms of who looked after her, there were two New Zealand - trained nurses. All of the rest were overseas trained—the people Winston Peters says should not be here, the people the honourable member for Tauranga says should not be in this country, the people the Hon Winston Peters says should be sent back.

I invite the member for Tauranga to read his Hansard and then give me a copy of it, signed, saying that he would be proud to have that speech put into every letterbox of every New Zealander in this country. I invite every member of New Zealand First to also sign that speech, saying they agree with every single thing that that member said in his speech. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): If the Rt Hon Winston Peters could desist from a barrage of interjections, please.

We had to sit and listen to the vitriol, the hatred, of the honourable member for Tauranga. We had to sit and listen in silence to the most despicable speech I have heard in my time in this Parliament. [Interruption] It was filth, it was disgusting, and it should be printed by every newspaper.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The interjection made by Mr Peters now is right out of order. He called out a number of times “I am not a traitor …”, which is probably out of order, because it is an innuendo implying that the member speaking is a traitor. He then made it clear that he was not a traitor, but that the member was. That is quite out of order, and Mr Peters should be asked to withdraw and apologise. As the speaker has pointed out, I do not think he interjected on Mr Peters’ speech once. Mr Peters is being very unparliamentary. He is clearly trying to break up a speech he does not agree with.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Lianne Dalziel barracked for the whole 10 minutes of my speech. Everybody understood it, and everybody knew it. I never protested, of course. In respect of seeking sanctuary under your ruling, I did not say a word about it, but that member has, and then he thinks he can carry on with that sort of tirade, and get away with it—having received your ruling that I may not make an interjection. If he wants me to keep silent—this is a convention—then he had better stop trying to be provocative himself, otherwise he will get it all back in his face.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank both members.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Peters does not understand. [Interruption] If he does, then his statement does not indicate that. The member may not suggest that other honourable members are traitors, and clearly that is what he was doing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Sorry, what was the word the member used?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: “Traitor”. He was calling out “I am not a traitor …”, then he told the member who is speaking that he was a traitor. That has to be out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. That word is not acceptable in the House. Whether it is acceptable to the person it was aimed at, or not, it is not acceptable in the House. I did not hear it, because Mr Peters speaks away from the microphone and away from the Chair. But if he did use that word in relation to any members in the House, I would ask him to withdraw it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said I was not a traitor, and he provoked me into saying that he was. I apologise for that.

If I could continue with my speech, I am not interested in the interjections of the member for Tauranga. If I am labelled a traitor—as I have been about four times by him—a traitor to his cause and his beliefs, then I plead guilty. There is no way that I will have anything to do with the beliefs of people like Mr Peters. Throughout the world I have seen that sort of vitriol, and that sort of politics leads to people parading around in countries like the USA, covered in white, burning crosses, and lynching people. That is the nature of the politics we are dealing with in a speech like that. That is the nature of the politics that New Zealand First members sign up to by following a leader like the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I will go back to the hospital that I have spent some time in.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even though Mr Peters might be prepared to accept that, I am not. No, the member may not suggest that Mr Peters and his fellow MPs are members of the Ku Klux Klan. [Interruption] He most certainly has done so. I take his final remarks as suggesting that. [Interruption] Well, the member might not, but I do. I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. Any suggestion that New Zealand First or its voters are members of the Ku Klux Klan—

I thank the member for raising that, but I did not think that Mr Gosche had gone that far. I know he mentioned the Ku Klux Klan in reference to some things he was talking about, but I did not think that he went as far as to directly refer to any members of this House.

💬 Hon MARK GOSCHE: I will finally finish this speech by going back to that hospital and those wards I was in, where not only did I see a lot of migrants working there as nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals, but also I saw the migrants of 20 or 30 years ago—my family, my aiga, my people from the Pacific. Once again, we are seeing the type of vitriol and hatred that the Pacific people had to endure 20 or 30 years ago, but now there is a new target. That is the target that the New Zealand First Party has chosen to build its support base on. That is the sort of politics that might attract a few people in this country. Thankfully, the vast majority of New Zealanders reject it. I want the media of this country to report the entire speech of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because it is the filthiest, most racist speech I have heard in this House in my time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened to that member say he is not prepared to defend his country and his people in it. As far as I am concerned, he is a pinko, quisling traitor.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need any further assistance on this one, please.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I thought I could advise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Mr Prebble might be able to help me. He is in the centre of it there.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The final remark made by the member who has just sat down is out of order. One may not call someone a traitor. But after you have asked that member to withdraw and apologise, I think Mr Peters should then withdraw and apologise for his remark.

I thank Mr Prebble. I require the Hon Mark Gosche to withdraw and apologise.

Under ordinary circumstances, I would. I am not prepared to withdraw the comments about racism. If I have to leave the House, I will do so.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member cannot make a statement that is out of order and then just say that he will be required to leave. In fact, if he does something as serious as that, he might end up being named.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is correct.

I do say to the member, by way of help, that the rules are quite clear. One cannot call another member a racist in the House, and he should withdraw and apologise for that statement.

I thank Mr Prebble. That is absolutely right. At the end of the member’s speech, those words were spoken. I require you to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise to the House.

I am going to deal with Mr Peters now. I require Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise to the House.

I withdraw and apologise.

It is an interesting speech that we have just heard from Mr Gosche. I ask him to read the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee report, because there was a submitter to the committee who likened this legislation to the apartheid legislation in South Africa. Of course, Mr Gosche is not here to listen to this. He got his tail between his legs and has gone, instead of sitting here and listening to what a member has to say. It is all very well for him to stand here and abuse a member of the House, but we would expect him to sit here and listen to the reply—the truth, rather than the type of speech that he has just made.

Mr Glynn, a solicitor in Auckland, who used to live in South Africa, stated that the Immigration Amendment Bill infringes values regarded as fundamental in any democracy and sets a dangerous precedent by excluding the review of administrative decision-making. Mr Glynn stated that he had previously practised law in South Africa, and that the unfettered discretions and retrospective policy-forming policies in this bill are reminiscent of powers found in much South African legislation prior to the democratic elections in 1994. Mr Glynn, a solicitor from South Africa, believes this bill is akin to the days of apartheid in South Africa.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where’s Gosche?

Where is Mr Gosche and what does he have to say about that? I cannot believe that people such as Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling, who were members of that party over there, could possibly have supported legislation that is similar to apartheid legislation in South Africa, according to one of the submitters to the select committee. The Auckland District Law Society stated that this bill creates an immigration system that cannot be trusted. Mr Gosche seems to be in favour of an immigration system that cannot be trusted. He does not seem to realise that it can be used against the very Pacific Island people to whom he was referring. This bill leaves the door wide open for abuse of entry from the Pacific Islands to New Zealand. It creates a system that can be used in a discriminatory or racist manner.

The Auckland District Law Society stated that this bill creates legislation that can be used in a racist manner. Who supports racist-type legislation in the House? It is the Labour Party and the United Future party. That is the clear view of the Auckland District Law Society submission. This bill also supports a system, according to the Auckland District Law Society, that could be open to corruption. The society stated that immigration officers can use the powers contained in this legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits, or make special conditions unclearly, inaccurately, or with ambiguity. There could not have been a worse type of legislation ever seen in the Parliament, and this Labour member of Parliament, Mr Gosche, unctuously supports it and criticises New Zealand First, which is opposing an apartheid, racist, and corrupt form of legislation, while Labour Party members sit there and support it.

Suggestions have now been made about doctors in hospitals. I am looking at a Western Leader article from the end of last month that explains the problems now being associated by New Zealand doctors with immigration. Because there has been so much immigration to New Zealand by foreign doctors, there are now too few jobs for New Zealand doctors. There are too few jobs and too many doctors. Medical school graduates are struggling to find jobs in hospitals. It is not surprising, if all the jobs have been taken by foreign doctors. It is also not surprising to have nursing staff here from overseas, because this Labour Party policy is a low-wage policy. Our doctors—and, in particular, our nurses—cannot stay in New Zealand. They do not earn enough in New Zealand, once they have graduated. They have student loans to pay back. How can they afford to pay those back on the low wages that the Labour Party has for nurses today? Of course they go overseas, and their places are taken by low-wage workers from overseas. We are turning into a low-wage country, and the Labour Party supports a low-wage policy.

It is no wonder the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions was highly critical of this legislation. The support given by the Council of Trade Unions for this bill was very, very conditional and qualified. In fact, the Council of Trade Unions policy is very similar to New Zealand First policy. We believe that this legislation continues to facilitate the Government’s policy of excessive immigration to New Zealand, and it is contrary to the New Zealand First policy of supporting an infusion of overseas skills and expertise—but not at the same time as we fail to train and improve the skills of our own people. Priority should be given only to people who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.

Nothing in this bill suggests that that would be the case. What we have in this bill is the failure of Labour’s policy in the last 4 years. It has been running a points system, which the Minister, during the Committee stage, indicated had failed. She had a points system based on 24 points, and far too many applications were lodged on that points system. It was increased to 25 points and then to 26 points. We got up to 29 points, and it was still not working. Labour’s policy failed miserably. She has run on that policy for almost 4 years. It has taken her 4 years to find out that the thing is not working. What did she do? She introduces a bill that lapses 20,000 applications overnight.

All those people had been waiting in the queue, hoping Labour would do something. Overnight, she lodged a bill in urgency whereby 20,000 applications lapsed and 46,000 people were written off. That is what will happen in the future. If an invitation to the New Zealand Immigration Service does not meet the approval of this Labour Minister and her officials, they will just tear it up and throw it away—there is no need to reply. That is why the magazine Auckland Today, in its August issue, indicated that this legislation would favour white South Africans and people from white Europe, and is opposed by and would not favour Chinese and Indians. Pansy Wong has made it very clear, time and time again, that of the 46,000 applications that were lapsed, the majority were Indians. That is a racist policy, to lapse the applications of one group of people. Mr Gosche talks about filth, etc., yet he is supporting racism—rampant racism in the policies of the New Zealand Immigration Service.

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member, I believe, is not allowed to say that another member is supporting racist policies, and I ask that he withdraw.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I do not believe that the member was accusing the previous speaker of being a racist. What he was doing was referring to whether the bill was racist, and that must be in order. Indeed, the minority report that New Zealand First put in, which was accepted by the committee, made that very case. The House should look at that, because I am sure members opposite are interested in whether the bill is racist.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you very much, Mr Prebble. That is very helpful. It had not gone past me that the member was within the bounds of what can be said.

The evidence before the select committee was very, very clear. It is there—the Labour Government obviously has not read it. The junior Government whip has not come to grips with what is in this bill. The Labour Government clearly has not come to grips with what is in this bill. All the matters were referred, time and time again, to the select committee.

The New Zealand First policy is very clear. We moved various amendments in the select committee. We wanted to make sure that the policies of this Government and of this bill would ensure that no more than a total of 10,000 residence permits are issued per annum. That policy was rejected by the Labour Government. We wanted to have it made clear, as far as the policies in this bill were concerned, that such migrants have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand—such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.

The Labour Party opposed that view—in fact, all other parties in the House opposed that view. The Minister said this bill is meant to relate to jobs that are available in New Zealand. If she is talking about matching the immigrant with the job, I point out that that is what the amendment was all about. The amendment said: “… migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand, such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” New Zealand First asks what is wrong with that. We do not want migrants coming here to take jobs from New Zealanders. The Labour Government does want migrants to come here to take jobs from New Zealanders. We do not want migrants to come here without jobs. The Labour Government still wants migrants to come here without jobs. We had an amendment before the House making it clear that migrants come here only for jobs that are approved for them.

This bill is a flim-flam. It is humbug. It does nothing to change the existing Labour Government policy—the Minister said so herself. Ultimately she has a discretion in terms of immigration policy. Mr Adams talked about one manual. In fact there are two manuals, and they are thick. I have copies of them and I have read them. This bill is flim-flam, humbug, and does not change anything. New Zealand First must oppose it.

I stand to congratulate the Minister on a fine job on this bill. I think she struck the right formula, and I support the speedy passage of this bill through the House.

The Minister in her address said that there will be another Immigration Amendment Bill coming into the House next year.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, I said we were reviewing the Act next year.

If the Minister is reviewing it, it means there will be another piece of legislation to come in. We have here legislation that has not been thought through. The Minister has admitted—just now, again—there will be a review. There will be another piece of legislation coming in again next year.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Not next year.

Well, the year after. The point is, why does the Government not do it right, and get it right the first time? The issue that we are constantly faced with is a Government that comes in with ad hoc legislation just to make some points because there happens to be a little issue at the time.

I refer back to the National Party’s minority report on page 11 in the commentary, because our position has not changed. We said: “The National Party has concerns that this legislation could be applied in such a way as to compromise some fundamental human rights principles. Its lack of transparency in procedure could lead to corruption. While it is recognized that there is a need to better match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy, National members believe that this can be done in a more transparent manner that does not compromise New Zealand’s international reputation.”

Nothing in the debate that we heard in the Committee stage would affect and change our position on what we thought was very important legislation. We are very concerned—and this was debated at length during the Committee stage—about section 10(3) in clause 5, which says that no review proceedings may be brought in any court in respect of a refusal or failure to issue a visa. What we are seeing here is that the Minister is going to have the power to allow people to come into New Zealand by invitation. The bill not only gives the Minister the absolute power to choose who can apply for residence, but absolute power to decide who is granted residence—that is what it says. That is the issue. The Minister will decide who may apply and who is granted residence.

We felt that that was wrong, and we debated it at length. The absolute power that the Minister will have will mean that no one can appeal. If we look at subsection (1) of section 10A, inserted by clause 6, we will see that it states: “No person is entitled as of right to an invitation to apply for residence.” It goes on to say that no one will have the power to appeal. One would have thought that people who have the skills, who can add value, and who want to make New Zealand their home, should be given the opportunity to come to New Zealand, to be able to invest here, live here, and raise a family here, but what this bill does is to bring in discrimination. It has been seen in the select committee reports that have been talked about this afternoon, and also in reports that the Law Society has issued. The Auckland Law Society said that it was concerned that this legislation could lead to corruption.

The bill gives the Minister of Immigration absolute power to choose who can be invited to apply for residence in our country, which is a huge power to give to a Minister. The Minister can extend that power to officials within the Immigration Service—the very same officials who are being investigated for the possibility of lying in unison. There was even a question today about officials lying in unison, and this bill is giving them the power. This legislation gives those officials, plus the Minister, extraordinary power, which National believes is unwarranted.

The Auckland District Law Society also went on to say: “We are ashamed that this kind of legislation is in front of Parliament.”, and that is pretty powerful stuff. We argued that this legislation offends against the concepts of fairness, natural justice, and transparency. We voted against this right through the process, and we are going to continue to vote against it.

I just want to look more closely at clause 6. What we should be doing is giving powers that will be in the public interest, which will lead to a win-win situation for our communities and for New Zealand, but section 10A, inserted by clause 6, gives the Minister and officials the power, and we are saying that that is not right.

We did support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, but there are major concerns that a Supplementary Order Paper that looks at the very important areas of security and protection for our communities was lodged on the morning of the debate. One would have thought that if that Supplementary Order Paper was so important, and if the Minister wanted support from this Parliament to pass this sort of bill, she would have had the courtesy to have said to all parties: “This is the bill. We believe it is in the public’s interest to have this bill before the House.” But, no, what happened? Opposition parties did not get it. National did not get it. I understand that New Zealand First did not get it. ACT did not get it—no way! But what party did get it? There was one party that was privy to it, and that was United Future.

As I said, we were supporting the Supplementary Order Paper, and one would have thought that if the Minister wanted the support of this House to be able to promote this bill, it would have been in the Government’s interest to bring in the Supplementary Order Paper earlier so that we could have looked at it more closely. National is not opposed to immigration. We want to get a win-win situation. We want people here who can add value.

There are a lot of immigrants in the area that I represent. For instance, if we look at the health field, we will see that a lot of doctors in the Piako electorate are from South Africa, and they do a very, very fine job. Mr Jones talked about some New Zealand doctors being unable to get work, but out in my area there is actually a shortage of doctors. If we did not have immigration, and if we did not have those doctors from South Africa in Piako, then our communities would suffer. So we do support immigration. We support those people who can bring those skills into our communities, but we are deeply offended by a system in which a Minister can say who can apply for residence. That places too much power in the Minister’s hands.

I recently had occasion to deal with a big employer in my electorate who had some immigrants who had residence but who could not speak English, yet they had been to a polytech and had a certificate to show that they were literate and that they had the numeracy skills to be able to work. The point I make here is that we want immigrants who can add value, and we encourage that sort of thing, but, unfortunately, there have been abuses of the system, and that needs to be tightened up. I say to the Minister that that is why we supported the Supplementary Order Paper, but there is nothing that we have heard in the Committee stage that changes National’s position. We are voting against this bill.