Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6786] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: Part 1 is a very serious part of this legislation and in my view is a very serious departure from the usual way in which the New Zealand Government administers its affairs. In my view Part 1 leaves us wide open to corruption at Government levels especially in our overseas offices where we know that from time to time there is corruption. New Zealand First has had evidence brought before it that if one wants a visa to come to New Zealand the best person to go and see in New Delhi is the bloke under the tree outside the front gate of the New Delhi High Commission. He will jack a visa up on the payment of cash. Surprisingly enough somehow or other the visa becomes available despite the fact that there is never any contact with the high commission. 
Section 13BA inserted by clause 4 states: “(1) The order and manner of processing any application … (2) The chief executive may from time to time give general instructions to visa officers … (3) In giving any such general instructions … (4) Unless otherwise expressed by the chief executive …” etc. So there are various ways in which administratively applications can be processed according to different priorities. 
There has always been a principle that applications are processed on a prioritised basis—first come first served. If an application has a defect then clearly it can drop to the bottom of the pile but one does not fiddle with an application’s place in the queue. To do so is the very beginning of corruption. It leaves the prospect of corruption wide open 
  
especially given that the Immigration Service is so dependent upon people in overseas countries where corruption is just a way of life. It is not unusual; it is the norm. New Zealand First is most concerned that as a result of the opportunities made available in this legislation there will be even more of the examples that have been put to this Government of corruption involving immigration in various places around the world. 
And we are being asked to rush it through Parliament. We would never agree to rush any sort of legislation through Parliament without select committee consideration but in this case we are being asked to support a Minister’s rushing legislation through Parliament when that Minister has been proven wrong in the High Court on her interpretation and administration of legislation. That is just not possible. 
I have looked at the Immigration Act—section by section in fact. In 1984 I was chairman of a select committee that reviewed the old Act and came out with new immigration legislation which was subsequently changed altered and became law in 1987. Since I became an MP again I have read every section in the Immigration Act and in terms of I think sections 13A and 13B I have two massive folders. I have been through them all and tried to ask questions on them but every time one asks a question one receives the statement: “Oh no we haven’t really given effect to that.”—especially on the health side of things. So we could not possibly accept another amendment to insert something else in section 13B without it going before a select committee to consider whether it will work. 
The new section 13B(1A) inserted by clause 3 states: “To avoid doubt any policy … is not Government residence policy regardless …”. The Government is saying that anything it does in these areas cannot be regarded as being Government residence policy and I ask whether it flows on that therefore no certificates are required under sections 13A and 13B to try to get around anyone having a look at this issue later on and deciding that as a certificate has not been issued the policy has not been complied with. The Government is saying that it is policy but it is not policy because the Government says it is not policy. Well is it policy or is it not? This legislation is saying that it is not policy even though it is policy. How can we possibly accept legislation of this kind? Just to avoid doubt carte blanche is being given to the Minister the executive and the various staff all around the world and there is no proper consideration of how it will be administered. 
This is a real recipe for disaster in the administration of our immigration system which is in some disrepair at the moment—which is why this bill is before Parliament. If everything were fine and dandy we would not be racing this bill through the House. We know that the Minister is in real trouble.