Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8266] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Before I start to speak to the title I thank the Minister for allowing me a briefing from officials about the Supplementary Order Paper which we will get to later. As a result of that briefing the ACT party supports the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Taking the bill as a whole I believe that the Committee should seriously consider the amendment suggested by Pansy Wong. I wonder whether New Zealand First members have read the bill because one of the two speakers has to be wrong. Pansy Wong says this bill is directed at reducing the amount of Asian migration into the country and that is why she will vote against it but New Zealand First members say that they will vote against it because there are too many Asians in the country. One of the speakers has to be right or wrong. 
I do not know whether New Zealand First supports the amendment but reading the New Zealand First minority view to the committee one has to hand it to them. One of the reasons they will vote against the bill is that “the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner”. That is exactly what I thought Mr Peters has been advocating. Surely he has been saying that we have too many Asians in New Zealand. Here is a bill which he says—shock horror—could be used in a discriminatory manner. That is what the party wants it to do 
. 
I just come back to the question of whether they should be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment. 
Craig McNair 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member who was just speaking to this bill claims something that New Zealand First has never talked about and the New Zealand First leader has not talked about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I assure the member that I was at a meeting where he most certainly did that. 
However I want to come back to the bill itself and say that what it actually does is move away from a points system which was designed to be neutral and goes back to a system of using discretions. I have been in this Parliament long enough to remember that immigration system and the fact that it did not work. It has been abandoned by all the immigration nations. Canada New Zealand and Australia have all concluded that those methods do not work. I say that the Immigration Amendment Bill will have an impact on who comes to New Zealand. There is no doubt that it will discriminate against Asians who are attempting to migrate. 
I also take up the point made by Mr McCully that to move from one country to another is a huge thing. It is a very big commitment and people have put their lives on hold for years. Those people waiting on the list were given in effect an undertaking that because they had the number of points and had met the criteria they would be able to come. As a result of this bill those people can be simply wiped off—there is no way of getting around that. It is my view 
—[Interruption].  
That is why I am supporting the amendment. The people who will be wiped off—and I want the Minister to confirm this—will be predominantly Chinese. Over half of them— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No I never said that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I know the Minister has not. I am saying it. I want the Minister to get up and refute it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It is not true. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says from the chair that it is not true. Seeing that she is able to make that statement I would be very interested to know whether she will take another call and tell us what the ethnic make up is of the people who will be taken off the list. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not in the title debate dear. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is very nice of the Minister to call me “dear”. It will probably start rumours around the whole country. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s defamatory. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Some say it is defamatory but I prefer to take it in a different way. The question most certainly is relevant because without a clear statement from the Minister the ACT party intends to support the amendment moved by Pansy Wong. We think this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the campaigning of Mr Winston Peters and his party. We do not believe that the Government had any intention of introducing this bill prior to the great shock it had last election. We think that this bill has been designed for base party political reasons to try to shore up the Labour Party’s vote in some parts of New Zealand which is being carved off by New Zealand First. 
I note that New Zealand First is still voting against this bill but it is my view that this is a bill Mr Peters himself could have drafted without any difficulty. I think Mr Peters is in favour of the bill due to the fact that he thinks it is discriminatory and for that reason I am intending to vote against it.