Wong Pansy: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6731] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 The only cold comfort to the Hon Richard Prebble and myself is that there are MPs who are treated even worse than Opposition MPs—and they are Government back-benchers. That fact has been demonstrated by the last two Labour MPs who stood up. They know absolutely nothing about the bill and therefore had nothing to say. I know why the Labour Government decided to— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh! 
PANSY WONG 
: That member should take a call. The senior whip always chips away but he never takes a call to say anything worthwhile. If he has anything worthy to say we will listen to him. 
I know why the Labour Government rushed this bill which is going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee under urgency. The bill was brought in to take all the attention away from the second piece of legislation which the Government wants to pass through all stages to legislate away the New Zealand Immigration Association’s victory. The association took the Government to court and won the case so the Government is going to legislate away the fruits of victory. This bill was introduced to take attention away from that second piece of legislation. 
The Minister wanted to tell the public that she had consulted and that all groups were happy with the bill. Well I talked to the chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment and members might be interested to know how the Minister’s consultation process actually works. Last night at 7.30 the chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment was rung by the manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service who asked to meet him at the airport at 3.30 p.m. the next day to discuss some general immigration policy issues. That is the type of consultation that the Labour Government finds satisfactory. I think it falls well short of what people would consider good consultation. 
I was surprised. Three years ago I thought that the Minister of Immigration enjoyed a good relationship with the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment. She promised the association that she would work with it on a partnership basis and have open dialogue. I wonder when the relationship went sour. I wonder whether it had anything to do with the fact that the association actually dared to take the Minister to court and won the case. I think the Labour Government has demonstrated that it will only look after those who never speak or vote against it. 
Of course it is well known now that Opposition MPs were briefed at 4.15 p.m.—at the same time that the Minister of Immigration was fronting up to the media conference and that the poor Associate Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor was given the hard task of explaining to the Opposition MP what this legislation was all about. I asked him a very simple question. I said: “Minister can you explain to us what you mean when you say that the Government will invite potential migrants to apply. Are you actually going to disclose in total how those migrants who end up in the pool are actually invited to apply?” He looked across to his advisors and said: “I think it is up to the discretion of the Minister and the immigration officials.” That is true. When I looked through the bill it said that the question of whether to issue or revoke such an invitation once issued was at the discretion of the Minister or subject to any special direction given under the Act. 
For once—and it is a rare occasion—I agree with the Green Party. This change will open the door to corruption. Let us make no mistake about it—this bill is opening the door for groups that would have the ear of the Labour Minister of Immigration and immigration officials because there is no transparency in the process. Who are the lucky ones who are invited to apply? I have looked through this legislation carefully. [ 
Interruption 
] If that member would stop chipping away and listen he might actually learn something. He should stop being a doormat and examine his party’s legislation. There is a serious issue at stake. This legislation opens the door to corruption. 
When I look at this bill I see that the wording used is that the legislation will be flexible and effective. Under the current immigration points system two other words appear: transparent and objective. Under the current points system the criteria are transparent and objective. Under this so-called migration policy transparency and objectivity go out the door. I challenge the members of the Green Party to vote like the National Party and vote against this first bill. They should vote against it because of the process. I think it is an absolute disgrace to introduce a bill without giving members of Parliament including Labour members themselves any notice so that they can come to grips with it. This policy will totally bury those criteria of objectivity and transparency. 
I want to ask a question because the Hon Damien O’Connor failed to answer it during the briefing session. The Hon Richard Prebble raised the issue of relevant jobs. Let us reflect on one example. If there is a need for builders one could argue that builders who might not have a tertiary education but who are on the priority list might be invited to apply. Let us consider that a builder from Britain or South Africa would be able to apply just on the priority of a relevant job offer but a builder from a non-English speaking country like China Malaysia or even India would have to pass 6.5 points of English language requirement. In 1987 the once-proud Labour Party claimed that it had legislated away immigration policy based on race. Today is a day of shame because the Labour Government has introduced legislation that states that job requirements are the top priority but boy it wants to see job applicants only from English-speaking countries. 
For generations Chinese and other ethnic communities have come here worked hard and continued to put up with Labour Ministers and MPs going to functions and saying: “You are the type of migrant we want.” In effect the Hon Chris Carter would bring along a translator to translate those welcoming speeches into Chinese—then go into the House and put up the English language requirement! National will not support race-based legislation that is lacking in transparency.