Immigration Amendment Bill

I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill and really reflect on the title of the bill. Although calling it the Immigration Amendment Bill is putting it into a wider context, this bill creates a different category, called protected persons, and they are not refugees. If you look at schedule 1, which we just passed, there are refugees and protected persons, and protected persons are really not to be protected. So if I were to give this bill a proper name, it would be something like the “Protected Persons Bill” or the “How Not to Protect Protected Persons Bill”, because it does create this crazy dilemma that we have now created in this bill a new category, called protected persons. To all intents and purposes they are refugees, but we will not deliver to them the kinds of services we are delivering to refugees. Refugees come to the border not categorised as refugees, but they claim refugee status. They get treated quite differently, but in respect of this particular group of protected persons that we have created in this new category it makes no difference to their plight. We take no responsibility, really, because what this bill does, this “Protected Persons Bill”, as I am now calling it, is ensure we do not protect them, because we will put them in situations where they will be in danger of mental health difficulties and the other kinds of difficulties that the Australian example shows us.

We are really giving a very clear signal that we do not intend to honour our obligations to the refugee convention. The convention dictates how we are to behave, and yet we will take them, we will lock them up, and we will treat them quite differently for long periods of time. So I think that something like the “Protected Persons Bill” or the “How Not to Protect Refugees Bill” might be appropriate names for this, because this bill gives that very clear signal that we will not be protecting them.

That leads me to perhaps another name, and it could be something like “The National Party’s Disinterest in Refugees Bill”. One has to wonder what it is about the National Party that it does not like refugees. I wonder whether the present refugee population of New Zealand actually understands that and appreciates that, because here are Government members taking groups of people like them—like the present refugees but at an earlier stage—and treating them in this vile and objectionable way. So this actually shows the National Party’s antipathy towards refugees.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: They are not refugees; they are asylum seekers.

Well, we treat the others who come seeking asylum much better. We do not lock them up. We actually provide services to them, Minister, so why is it for this group, of maybe only 30—the Minister originally intended it to be a group of only 11—that we lock them up in that kind of way? Minister, we have presented argument after argument that there is no evidence for the need for this. [Interruption] There is not. No boat has come this far. Despite Abel Tasman and despite the Māori canoes getting here, as speakers on this side have said, there is no need for this bill. It has not happened yet, and there are other ways of dealing with this situation if it occurs. The Minister defends that by saying that this bill is not National against refugees, but in fact that is the effect of it. When people become refugees, they become part of our refugee population. The Minister is dancing on the head of a pin when he says these people are not refugees. We have responsibilities under the convention to make sure that we treat them properly. There are guarantees in the system the Minister has designed here that they will not get that fair treatment.

Look at the mental health statistics out of the Australian example, Minister, and look at what those examples tell us. Listen to the Australian examples. But, no, another name for this bill is the “John Howard Lookalike Bill”, because this is, indeed, what John Howard did. Look at what happened to him in the end. He might have won an election, but he told lies to the Australian people. [Interruption] Mr Howard did—the Australian Prime Minister did. Remember what he said about children being thrown back into the water? He lied about that. There is something similar about this particular bill in that, in a sense, it is intellectually dishonest to say that they will come.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, which is probably one of the most insidious pieces of legislation this House has had to consider since last Wednesday, when we had the first reading of the dreadful Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Now we come back to this. This is a time of electoral desperation for this Government. Anything it can do to divert and distract attention, it will do. So it will trot in all these dreadful pieces of legislation when it suits, and now, tonight, it is the turn of the Immigration Amendment Bill. It deals with so-called mass arrivals. The most unusual thing, however—I just want to make this observation—is that so many pieces of legislation that have come through this House in the last few weeks or months have created injustice upon injustice. So it is refreshing, at least, to see that it is the Minister of Immigration, as opposed to the Minister of Justice, who has introduced this latest piece of legislation, which creates the latest dreadful injustice we have to contend with.

There is no question that this bill is absolutely and utterly meaningless. It will apply to nothing. There is no risk for it to address. There is no remedy that it can provide to any meaningful problem. Passing this legislation is taking up the time of this Committee, its energy, and, I might add, its intellectual capacity, although that is really affecting only this side of the Chamber. Mr Woodhouse looks at me quizzically and curiously. He is sitting there thinking: “Intellectual capacity? I’m an accountant. I’ve never heard of that before.” So a more suitable name for this piece of legislation would be, as my colleague Rajen Prasad suggested, the “Immigration (John Howard Reprise) Bill”. This bill is a throwback to an age of political chicanery, duplicity, and manipulation that we have not seen for a long, long time. We certainly have not seen it under the Julia Gillard Government—that straight-shooting Labor Government across the Tasman. We have not seen anything like this for some years.

This bill might otherwise be named the “Immigration (Electoral Desperation) Amendment Bill”. Whenever you are in trouble, when your coalition partners are floundering around and evaporating before you, what do you do? You create a distraction. The only mass arrival that this Government has been looking forward to—and that has not happened—is the people turning up to the United Future membership recruitment office. There is no one turning up there to sign up any more. That party is history, and its one and only member is history as well. This Government is desperate to cobble together something that looks like a stable and credible Government. Well, it is not happening, and it is disappearing fast.

The only other suggestion I have for this piece of legislation—because, humour aside, it is embarrassing, frankly, for the Committee to be spending its time on legislation of this nature; it runs counter to the international obligations and commitments that we have made—is an alternative title, which is the “Immigration (Degradation of International Reputation) Amendment Bill”. This is a bill that cuts across our reputation as a country that has established itself firmly as one that offers the hand of solicitude, support, and succour when it is needed to our international friends—those who are left stateless, those who are, by the circumstances in their countries, left to flee for a better life and a better time. This legislation does not reflect that value, that approach, of this country and its role as an international citizen. It is an embarrassment, and as politicians of this country travel the world over the next few months and years, they will be collared and asked how on earth a nasty, insidious piece of legislation like this could get passed. And we will have to respond that it is because of the nasty, insidious Government that put it through.

I want to pick up where my colleague Andrew Little left off. I would like to think of another name for this bill, because the title “Immigration Amendment Bill” does not really cut it, does it? It does not really describe what this bill is about.

I would like to suggest that we call this bill the “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”. That is for three main reasons. First and foremost is the fact that the actual content of this bill—this is where I am picking up from my colleague Andrew Little—is shameful. The suggestion of how we might treat these people is shameful—people who are already in the worst possible situations, people who risk their lives and their families’ lives to try to escape terrible situations. For these people to come to a country and be detained in the manner described in this bill is shameful. It is shameful that our country’s reputation is being dragged through the mud by this National Government. It is a reputation that many of us, and many people listening to Parliament, are very proud of. It is a reputation that is well deserved, because New Zealand has been a country that has treated people well and has played a role in all sorts of international forums.

The bill is shameful in that regard, but, secondly, it is shameful in the sense that I actually do not think anybody across the Chamber believes it is necessary. It is shameful because we are wasting the time of this House putting through legislation that almost inevitably is not going to be used, because we are not going to have mass arrivals in this county. We have not had any such situation arise. Others this afternoon and this evening have described the reasons for that. We are a long way from anywhere. We have a very hostile climate to get through in order to reach this country by boat. The expectation is that we will not need to use this legislation. There will not be mass arrival groups for us to detain, thankfully.

None the less, it is still shameful. It is shameful that the Government is using this bill, as others have said, to disguise some of the other things it is doing, as a distraction to try to do the dog whistle politics, to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator—the anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant kind of mentality that exists and that this Government likes to manipulate.

But also this bill is shameful because this is legislation that has been prioritised over other legislation. It is shameful because there is really important legislation that this House should be dealing with. I would say, for argument’s sake, that legislation trying to regulate loan sharks would be very important legislation for this Parliament to be dealing with, because it would actually make a real difference in people’s lives. But despite promising that prior to the last election—cynically, in fact, in November of 2011—and then a whole suite of backbench National MPs talking about getting tough on loan sharks, at the end of April we finally had a bill introduced to this House, and it is still awaiting first reading. We could profitably be dealing with something like that, which we have already said we would support going to select committee because it is a real issue. It is an issue that I have been talking to budgeting services about over the last 2 months. Thousands of New Zealand families are getting stung by high interest rates, high fees—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

—getting into a spiral of debt—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

Well, Mr Chairperson, it is about the title of this bill, which is the “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”, and this is the third part of why this is National’s shame. Not only is it offensive in content, not only is it a shame because it is unnecessary, it is a shame because we are doing this instead of doing things that we actually need to be doing and that are worthwhile. I think that it fits within the title “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”.

I do not think that anybody in this Committee has presented any argument. Certainly those members opposite have not, nor has the Minister of Immigration, presented any really compelling reason for this legislation—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Not one call.

Not one call—exactly—as my colleague says. Apart from the Minister, we have just had National MPs sitting across the Chamber moving closure motions. This is a pattern. This is a pattern we see all too often. Why are members opposite not willing to actually stand up and debate the bill? If this is such an important issue, if this is so necessary, get up and say something about it. You have an opportunity. We are still on the title clause. Get up and explain to us why this is such an important bill. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

💬 Hon Member: Good choice.

Good choice, indeed. I would like to speak and also offer my opposition to the title of the Immigration Amendment Bill, which I do not think describes what is happening here at all. There are many things I would like to call this bill, but most of them I am not allowed to say in this Chamber, I must say. So I will constrain myself to polite language in alternative titles, though, to be honest, they will not reflect how I actually feel about this bill. The Minister of Immigration may have called me sanctimonious for quoting the Human Rights Commission. You know, it was not actually my opinion I was offering; it was the Human Rights Commission’s opinion. If that makes me sanctimonious, well, I will live with that.

Being on the side of the Human Rights Commission, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, of people working with refugees in Australia—you know, I am OK siding with those people and their views of this bill. I am sure they would come up with quite a few titles for this bill that were not “Immigration Amendment Bill”. I think one title maybe would be the “Needless Fearmongering Bill”. I do want to speak to that title a little bit, because it speaks to some of the heart of this for me, around the difficulty of speaking to this bill. It is difficult because when we talk about that, in fact, there is not going to be a mass arrival, because—despite the fact that, you know, waka arrived here from the Pacific a while ago and we had some large boats—the world is different now.

We know that the boat that made it to Canada that had 500 people on it was a multimillion-dollar boat, I think, and was funded by a very wealthy Tamil community in Canada. We know that in New Zealand we have had advice from the officials that we have no such wealthy refugee community in New Zealand who would be capable of funding such a venture. So it is incredibly, incredibly unlikely.

The fact that a boat made it to Australia carrying people who said they wanted to come to New Zealand means nothing—nothing at all—because your first point of arrival is where you seek refuge. And to say you want to go somewhere else means nothing. But in speaking the way I am speaking right now, I am really conscious that it creates a sense of fear that, actually, we would not want an arrival of people, that it is something we need to shore ourselves up against and we need to create barriers to prevent these people from coming here. That is not an impression that I want to give, because these are people who are fleeing wars, who are fleeing persecution. Many are people who are trying to do the right thing, who may be going against their military and the call from their Government to kill people, which they find morally repugnant, and they are fleeing for their lives in the belief of doing something right. These are not people we should be shoring ourselves up against and creating barriers for in order to prevent them from entering our country.

Our country does very, very little, actually, globally, in terms of supporting asylum seekers. In terms of Australia, actually we are talking about not wanting the terrible situation that is happening in Australia. Globally, Australia takes in very few asylum seekers compared with other countries. Look at what is happening in Lebanon at the moment and how it is welcoming refugees and asylum seekers into its country, into its systems. It is not setting up camps. In fact, it is just allowing people to integrate, because it recognises its role in the global community, in protection, and that fundamental value of us having a place to go in a time of strife. That is what we should be striving for. That is what the convention committed us to. This bill should be titled the “National Day of Shame Bill”, the “Bill Lacking in Humanity Bill”, the “Not Doing Our Fair Share in the World Bill”, or the “Ruining our International Reputation Bill”. I can list off flippant titles, but this is not a flippant matter. This does come down to the leadership we are going to take in the world in terms of ensuring people’s safety and being able to stand up and say that we have a role to be able to ensure people’s safety, we need to sort out the UN systems, and we need to sort out the refugee camp systems. I went to a refugee camp this year for the first time in my life, and they are no life.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. A very good choice indeed, Mr Chairperson, because when it comes to debating the title of this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, it causes me to internalise a complicated situation, I have got to say.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

It does. When I am contemplating the name and the title of this bill, it causes me to say that I am internalising a complicated situation, because I am trying to work out how I can get the phrase “ghost ships” into the title of this bill. I think if we were able to get, you know, “Immigration (Ghost Ship) Amendment Bill”—and I should just say, so that people listening to this debate understand, that I am talking about ships: s-h-i-p-s. I just want to make it crystal clear that I am talking about ghost ships.

If we had that in brackets as part of the title of this bill, every time that people looked at this bill, when it becomes an Act, they would remember the background to what actually brought this about. They would remember that during the Christmas break last year—no, sorry, not the one just gone but the one prior to that. I think the Minister at the time might have been Simon Bridges, I think it was, who is well-known for bringing before this House lots of pieces of legislation that do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights clean bill of health, if you like. He is actually becoming quite known for that. It was Simon Bridges, who was the Minister at the time, who said: “Look, look over there. Don’t look here at the National Party scandals. Look over there. Somewhere out in the world a long, long way away, in a land far, far away, there are 500 people on a boat and they want to come to New Zealand. They want to take our country over.”

It was like—what is it that John Key says these days? He says: “Oh, nothing to see here.” That is right. That is what he says: “Move along, nothing to see here.” Well, Simon Bridges was trying to copy that sort of stance: “Move along, nothing to see here. Stop looking at the scandals.” I cannot remember exactly which one it was at the time, but this Government is constantly embroiled in scandals. It is a bit hard to keep up, but there was one going on at the time that caused Simon Bridges to do the “Nothing to see here. Move along. Look over there; way, way away over the other side of the world”—and I think, in fact, over to Canada. That is how far away it was. There was a boat with 500 people on it apparently going via Canada to get to New Zealand, because that was where they really wanted to come! He was trying to convince New Zealanders that this boat was on its way here and that not only would it arrive here but also when it arrived here our way of life would be threatened. Our way of life would be threatened by these 500 people. And, of course, we know now that this mass arrival of 500 people then turned out to be 30 people, and has now been reduced to more than 10 people. So the whole sort of scaremongering thing that has gone on should be reflected in the title. I would like to get “ghost ships” in there in brackets, but if I cannot do that—if we cannot actually get an amendment to get “ghost ships” in there in that way—then I would like to get the phrase “scaremongering” into the title, because I think that this is exactly what this bill has been designed to do.

I notice that when there have been members from the Labour Party or the Green Party taking calls, the members opposite have wanted to bellow and call out and bray from their seats—well, not even their own seats, quite frankly, but that is another matter—but they will not take a call. They will not actually get up and take a call to express their views. They will only yell across the Chamber, instead of actually getting on their feet and telling us why it is that they believe that this is such an important measure that should be taking up the House’s time. But they have no way of actually being able to describe that.

I join with Jan Logie in looking in wonder at a Minister of Immigration who got to his feet during the debate to sanctimoniously declare that Jan Logie was sanctimonious. I thought it was actually quite comical to see the sanctimony coming from that Minister as he sanctimoniously had a go at another member for apparently being sanctimonious. And how was that member being sanctimonious? She was being sanctimonious by pointing out the human rights abuses inherent in this piece of legislation. Well, I join with her, and I say that Jan Logie should wear that as a badge of honour, quite frankly. If that is what it takes to be called sanctimonious—

I move, That the question be now put.