Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3, which are the title, commencement, and principal Act clauses. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

I would like to talk to the Minister about the commencement date of this bill. I want to know from the Minister why it is that—Madam Chair, I’ll take your guidance on this, if it’s out of scope—all of this was done in such a rush. The reason that I want to bring this into the commencement is because we’ve had very, very little time to hear from all of the submitters that we wanted to hear. We had a very short time to consider what is a doubling of the extension of the powers. As the New Zealand Law Society said, the truncated nature of this bill meant that, actually, the one-year sunset clause that we had was a really good safeguard, but the Minister wanted two years. So the fact is that we’ve had a very truncated select committee process, both in the first time we passed this bill and the second time we passed this bill, yet we’re asking for two years.

So my question to the Minister is, why is it—because he’s actually never answered this question—that this bill wasn’t brought last year, when we would have been able to have a proper, long process, especially given that he wasn’t asking for one year? In fact, he originally wanted three years, but he’s actually asking for two years. So my question to the Minister is: what happened? Why do we have this short time frame, given that he’s known about the sunset clause in this bill for a year?

Well, while the Minister sits there impassively and declines to trouble himself with answering that question, it is a question that I think New Zealanders want an answer to. What we have here is a perfectly predictable issue that these powers that Parliament granted to this Minister at an extraordinary time under a pandemic were about to expire. He had plenty of time to work out that this was going to happen, and the proper thing to have done would have been to have introduced this legislation earlier in the process so that we would have had a proper amount of time to debate it, to consider it, and to fully understand the implications of it. That’s how Parliament works in this country.

So for the benefit of people who are tuning in on their crystal sets to this publication here, how bills—legislation—are normally passed in this country is that the Government proposes a bill and then it’s sent off to a select committee which calls for submissions, and then there are several months so that New Zealanders have an opportunity to comment on it. One thing that I learnt as a—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a very narrow debate about the commencement date for this bill. So far, we have had one and a half contributions that have talked about the select committee process and sunset clauses, but not commencement date.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member has a point. This is about the title and the clause of commencement. The Hon Paul Goldsmith, can you make it relevant, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very grateful for your comments, but, of course, the commencement date is only the commencement date because of the timing of this bill. The point I was making was that—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: It was out of order.

And I don’t need any comments from the member from over there. I can handle this myself, thank you very much.

Now, the proposal around the commencement date of this piece of legislation, and the point I was making was that the normal process—and I was doing it for the benefit of people who might be listening in—is that New Zealanders have an opportunity to talk about it. Now because we haven’t had that opportunity, we’re left here with what is an inadequate scrutiny of this legislation because of this Government’s laziness when it came to introducing this legislation, and that is relevant to the time, notwithstanding the fact that it will be passed because this Government has the numbers in this House. We agree with the basic proposition of these powers being extended; the question is how far and for how long. So my only point to the Minister is I’d just expect a little bit more humility, I suppose, when dealing with the processes of Parliament.

I might just take a quick contribution to address the question that’s been afforded of us in this very narrow debate.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Make it 2½ minutes.

I’ll try my best. If you do some of the maths on some of that process, this bill extinguishes mid-May. If we were to have a select committee process, whether it be four to six months, you’d take us roughly to January or December of last year. Now, something happened late last year, it’s called an election, and coming into Government and making sure that we were progressing priority legislation was what the new Government wanted to do. We always knew that this piece of legislation would need to be updated in order to allow the officials to have the lead-up and do the policy work to get it to that stage, and the period where there was an election being held obviously affected that. It helps us that the election result is what it is, because we are able to get this piece of legislation through now. So if that answers the question in this very narrow part of this debate, I hope that suffices the Opposition.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that clause 1 stand part.

💬 Matt Doocey: A point of order, Madam Chair. I’m just wondering if you could repeat that, because I was slightly distracted.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the question be now put. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Mr Speaker, this committee has considered the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The House is now adjourned for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.