Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
Mr Glynn a solicitor in Auckland who used to live in South Africa stated that the Immigration Amendment Bill infringes values regarded as fundamental in any democracy and sets a dangerous precedent by excluding the review of administrative decision-making. Mr Glynn stated that he had previously practised law in South Africa and that the unfettered discretions and retrospective policy-forming policies in this bill are reminiscent of powers found in much South African legislation prior to the democratic elections in 1994. Mr Glynn a solicitor from South Africa believes this bill is akin to the days of apartheid in South Africa. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where’s Gosche? 
DAIL JONES 
: Where is Mr Gosche and what does he have to say about that? I cannot believe that people such as Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling who were members of that party over there could possibly have supported legislation that is similar to apartheid legislation in South Africa according to one of the submitters to the select committee. The Auckland District Law Society stated that this bill creates an immigration system that cannot be trusted. Mr Gosche seems to be in favour of an immigration system that cannot be trusted. He does not seem to realise that it can be used against the very Pacific Island people to whom he was referring. This bill leaves the door wide open for abuse of entry from the Pacific Islands to New Zealand. It creates a system that can be used in a discriminatory or racist manner. 
The Auckland District Law Society stated that this bill creates legislation that can be used in a racist manner. Who supports racist-type legislation in the House? It is the Labour Party and the United Future party. That is the clear view of the Auckland District Law Society submission. This bill also supports a system according to the Auckland District Law Society that could be open to corruption. The society stated that immigration officers can use the powers contained in this legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits or make special conditions unclearly inaccurately or with ambiguity. There could not have been a worse type of legislation ever seen in the Parliament and this Labour member of Parliament Mr Gosche unctuously supports it and criticises New Zealand First which is opposing an apartheid racist and corrupt form of legislation while Labour Party members sit there and support it. 
Suggestions have now been made about doctors in hospitals. I am looking at a  
Western Leader 
 article from the end of last month that explains the problems now being associated by New Zealand doctors with immigration. Because there has been so much immigration to New Zealand by foreign doctors there are now too few jobs for New Zealand doctors. There are too few jobs and too many doctors. Medical school graduates are struggling to find jobs in hospitals. It is not surprising if all the jobs have been taken by foreign doctors. It is also not surprising to have nursing staff here from overseas because this Labour Party policy is a low-wage policy. Our doctors—and in particular our nurses—cannot stay in New Zealand. They do not earn enough in New Zealand once they have graduated. They have student loans to pay back. How can they afford to pay those back on the low wages that the Labour Party has for nurses today? Of course they go overseas and their places are taken by low-wage workers from overseas. We are turning into a low-wage country and the Labour Party supports a low-wage policy. 
It is no wonder the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions was highly critical of this legislation. The support given by the Council of Trade Unions for this bill was very very conditional and qualified. In fact the Council of Trade Unions policy is very similar to New Zealand First policy. We believe that this legislation continues to facilitate the Government’s policy of excessive immigration to New Zealand and it is contrary to the New Zealand First policy of supporting an infusion of overseas skills and expertise—but not at the same time as we fail to train and improve the skills of our own people. Priority should be given only to people who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals. 
Nothing in this bill suggests that that would be the case. What we have in this bill is the failure of Labour’s policy in the last 4 years. It has been running a points system which the Minister during the Committee stage indicated had failed. She had a points system based on 24 points and far too many applications were lodged on that points system. It was increased to 25 points and then to 26 points. We got up to 29 points and it was still not working. Labour’s policy failed miserably. She has run on that policy for almost 4 years. It has taken her 4 years to find out that the thing is not working. What did she do? She introduces a bill that lapses 20000 applications overnight. 
 All those people had been waiting in the queue hoping Labour would do something. Overnight she lodged a bill in urgency whereby 20000 applications lapsed and 46000 people were written off. That is what will happen in the future. If an invitation to the New Zealand Immigration Service does not meet the approval of this Labour Minister and her officials they will just tear it up and throw it away—there is no need to reply. That is why the magazine  
Auckland Today 
 in its August issue indicated that this legislation would favour white South Africans and people from white Europe and is opposed by and would not favour Chinese and Indians. Pansy Wong has made it very clear time and time again that of the 46000 applications that were lapsed the majority were Indians. That is a racist policy to lapse the applications of one group of people. Mr Gosche talks about filth etc. yet he is supporting racism—rampant racism in the policies of the New Zealand Immigration Service. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member I believe is not allowed to say that another member is supporting racist policies and I ask that he withdraw. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I do not believe that the member was accusing the previous speaker of being a racist. What he was doing was referring to whether the bill was racist and that must be in order. Indeed the minority report that New Zealand First put in which was accepted by the committee made that very case. The House should look at that because I am sure members opposite are interested in whether the bill is racist. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you very much Mr Prebble. That is very helpful. It had not gone past me that the member was within the bounds of what can be said. 
DAIL JONES 
: The evidence before the select committee was very very clear. It is there—the Labour Government obviously has not read it. The junior Government whip has not come to grips with what is in this bill. The Labour Government clearly has not come to grips with what is in this bill. All the matters were referred time and time again to the select committee. 
The New Zealand First policy is very clear. We moved various amendments in the select committee. We wanted to make sure that the policies of this Government and of this bill would ensure that no more than a total of 10000 residence permits are issued per annum. That policy was rejected by the Labour Government. We wanted to have it made clear as far as the policies in this bill were concerned that such migrants have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand—such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand. 
The Labour Party opposed that view—in fact all other parties in the House opposed that view. The Minister said this bill is meant to relate to jobs that are available in New Zealand. If she is talking about matching the immigrant with the job I point out that that is what the amendment was all about. The amendment said: “… migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” New Zealand First asks what is wrong with that. We do not want migrants coming here to take jobs from New Zealanders. The Labour Government does want migrants to come here to take jobs from New Zealanders. We do not want migrants to come here without jobs. The Labour Government still wants migrants to come here without jobs. We had an amendment before the House making it clear that migrants come here only for jobs that are approved for them. 
This bill is a flim-flam. It is humbug. It does nothing to change the existing Labour Government policy—the Minister said so herself. Ultimately she has a discretion in terms of immigration policy. Mr Adams talked about one manual. In fact there are two manuals and they are thick. I have copies of them and I have read them. This bill is flim-flam humbug and does not change anything. New Zealand First must oppose it.