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:6793] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I am looking at clause 5 and I will try to concentrate on that in this call. I will look to make a speech on clause 6 later. We have a situation here where the heading to clause 5 is “Past order and manner of processing applications deemed valid”. I have gone to the clause to try to understand what it means—bearing in mind that it has not been to a select committee where members would get a considerable amount of time to look at a bill; instead here we are with barely 5 minutes to come to grips with it and to ask questions on it. 
Subclause 5(1) states: “Any—(a) failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister to process an application for a visa or permit …; or (b) decision by a visa officer or an immigration officer … to process or not to process an application … occurring or made before the commencement of this Act is deemed to have been validly done”. So the Government is saying that any mistakes that we make—and which we will continue to make—before this legislation comes into force which could be tomorrow 3 July are valid. It does not matter what the mistake is and it does not matter what has been done because the decision is still valid—even if we do not know a mistake was made. We may not have the faintest idea of what we are doing in our department but regardless of the fact that we do not know what the decision is even if it is the wrong decision it is deemed to be the right decision. 
The Government is saying that all wrong decisions are right decisions. All the applications that have been moved along by a visa officer for people who may be criminals from overseas or who may be involved in some type of fraud scam or the like have been validly processed. At the same time all the applications that should have gone ahead and been properly considered but that have been rejected have also been validly processed even though the rejection of those applications did not comply with any Government policy. What a load of nonsense that is! 
Subclause 5(2) states that “No appeal lies against any decision to process or not to process an application” whether or not the appeal is made by an authority or even by the Minister. So a visa officer in New Delhi could continue to process the application of a known terrorist from say Kashmir or Afghanistan and that process and suchlike could be accepted—whatever “process” actually means and I will look at clause 5(4) later. This bill validates all sorts of processes no matter how ineffectual wrong or contrary to policy they may be. The Minister the authority the tribunal or a court cannot object to what an official has done. What preposterous legislation this is! Someone has dreamt it up in a hurry without any great concern. I accept the Minister’s word but in the four working days or so when this bill was being assessed which was somewhere between 23 June and when this bill was introduced yesterday afternoon—we have not even had the chance to look at it for 24 hours—legislation has been rushed in that will allow an official to let a terrorist from Afghanistan or possibly Iraq into the country. For all that we know Osama bin Laden could be approved under this legislation and the Minister could not object to the way in which his application had been processed. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: He might already be here. 
DAIL JONES 
: That is right—goodness only knows. This Government is verifying that kind of mistake in this legislation. 
One tries to work out the meaning of “to process”—or not to process. It is very Hamlet-esque; it is very Shakespearean. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That is the question. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is the question and I am asking it. What does it mean to process an application or not to process it? Clause 5(4)(a) confuses the issue even more. It states: “a reference to a failure to process an application includes a reference to a failure to continue to process an application”. Then clause 5(4)(c) goes on to state: “a reference to a decision not to process an application includes a reference to a decision not to continue to process an application.” What is meant by processing an application? Does that include completing the application? I ask that question. How far does the term “process” go? It could mean an application is stamped done and delivered. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s absolute. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is absolute. That could mean the process is completed and Osama bin Laden is welcome to New Zealand because the New Zealand Labour Party and United Future would welcome him in terms of clause 5 of this bill.