Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6727] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We have two immigration bills before the House. This one is the first of them and I understand it is to go through the House under urgency. The way the Government is treating the House in respect of this bill is very unparliamentary. It is treating Parliament with contempt. There is no reason that the Minister could not have raised a ministerial statement. Indeed she has waited until after question time to hold a meeting. I thought I was being summonsed to a meeting at the Immigration Service but I found out that it was with the Associate Minister of Immigration. Meanwhile the Minister went off to talk to the media. That shows that this Government’s priorities are all about spin and media management rather than about speaking to the House in a correct way. 
I shall deal with the first bill. No one has told us why it has to go through under urgency. I think the reason is that the service is saying it might be flooded with applications. Of course every parliamentarian knows that that is a rubbish argument. All that the bill needed to do was include a clause stating that as from today the bill would take effect. That would mean that people filing an application would be told they were wasting their time because it was the new rules that would apply. However this Government does not want the House to examine even that measure. Why should we? The Minister says that 20000 people are in the queue. Actually another statement further on gives a number larger than that and there might be some 40000 people in the general-skills category. Those people may not be New Zealanders but they have considered this country seriously enough to have gone to an immigration office to obtain forms and fill them out pay money and put their lives on hold intending to come to New Zealand. 
How is this Government treating those people? It is treating them with absolute contempt. Members should make no mistake about that. The bill that is going through the House now will turn thousands of people’s lives upside down. Can the Minister assure us she is doing that in a fair way? She has actually given us an assurance that she is not. If we read this measure properly we see that those people who have paid their money cannot even appeal. Under the Fair Trading Actone would be done for doing that. If people in business did what the Minister is about to do they would be hauled in front of the courts. Indeed because of the way those people have been treated they might even go to jail. Have we been told that this legislation is so urgent that it has to be done that way? I have not heard that argument. New Zealand has a points system. Suddenly we are told by the Minister who has been a Minister for 4 years that she has discovered that the points system is a complete and utter mess. That is very interesting. It has been going since 1991. She has been a Minister for 4 years before suddenly discovering that fact. 
John Carter 
: What’s changed? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes what has changed? I make this point to the Minister as well. I looked up the  
Hansard 
 debates of when the points system was introduced by Bill Birch. But before we blame the National Party I point out that David Caygill—a Labour member then—got up and said he supported the points system. The Minister and other Government members might have been gracious enough to acknowledge that the National Government devised the points system. I do not say it invented it; it has been in place for many years in Australia and Canada. The points system is still in place in Australia and Canada. Suddenly we are told that it does not work in New Zealand. Where is the real evidence? Yes we find immigrants who do not fit in. However hard cases do not make good law. We are to go back to an occupational system. 
I have been in this House long enough to remember that system and I shall quote what a distinguished member of this House said about that. Let us take one example: the need for skilled labour. “The reality is that New Zealand wants and needs skilled and trades people to fill skills shortages in New Zealand.” Even Winston Peters agrees with that statement. “Those shortages exist in spite of record unemployment and if they could be filled would create jobs and productivity. The policy in its broadest sense does recognise that.” He is talking about the old skills system that we will go back to. “But in practice employers’ efforts to recruit such people are hampered by a labyrinth of petty bureaucratic procedures. They have to face an occupational priority list that is often irrelevant always out of date and fundamentally unable to respond to the complexities of the marketplace.” I would like to talk to Aussie Malcolm. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Before the dinner break I made a number of points to the House. The first was to express my anger that the Government has treated the House so cavalierly. Over the dinner break I was talking with representatives of Business New Zealand and found out that they had been briefed well before MPs were so had the media. Members of Parliament were briefed last and then it was at a time when we could not ask any questions. Secondly I expressed anger that this bill was going through under urgency. There is no validity to that argument. All it needs—and any constitutional lawyer can tell members this—is a clause saying that after 4 o’clock today no applications will be considered under the old rules and that is not retrospective. 
We are pushing through a bill without giving it proper scrutiny. I object to that. I point out that the Minister says that at least 20000 people are affected by it. I think the figure is really 46000. These are people who have paid their money and are interested enough in this country to have made an application to come here. Some have put their lives on hold for 2 years only to have their applications cavalierly dismissed by this House. I am not convinced that they should not have been treated a great deal better but I make this point to the House: those who do not know their history have to repeat it. The Minister has not given us anything like enough information on the questions. The form she has put out asks about relevant job offers. I ask her what that means. What is a relevant job? That means there must be irrelevant jobs. Who is to decide what a relevant job is? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The policy has the answer to that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh the policy is to be the answer. Obviously the Minister has taken lessons from Parekura Horomia. What a nonsense! What is a policy? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s already in the policy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well it sounds very much like an occupational priority list. That is what we used to have—occupational priority lists. It was complete bureaucracy. One would find that a job out in the community was so extremely important that the Immigration Service officials had never heard of it. The Minister said that we want to stop consultants in this area. Well the consultants just loved that. We also used to have people who went out and found jobs for new immigrants who would then apply for the jobs and be given them. It used to be a racket and we are to have that racket brought back by this Minister. She ought to stop and think about why both Labour and National decided against what she is now going to do. Why did Australia decide against it? Why did Canada decide against it? We will find out. But if the Minister thinks that the proposal is so good why can we not send the bill to a select committee? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We are sending it to a select committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is it the next immigration bill that is coming in under urgency? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The next one is coming in under urgency. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: OK that is fair enough. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I said that right at the start. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I missed that because the Minister did not give us notice of when she was going to introduce it. It is part of the arrogance of the show. I went off to a meeting at 4 o’clock and then found that the Minister was speaking in the House. Again that is treating the Opposition with contempt. So we are sending this immigration bill to the select committee but not the next one. Why are we not sending both bills to the select committee? Why can the House not look at the legislation? This is an issue that affects the make-up of this country. Both bills should be going to a select committee. Instead the Minister is treating us with contempt.