Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6761] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: ACT will be opposing this legislation. What we see with this bill is this Labour Government doing it again. Here we are in urgency debating a bill that is being rushed through the House. It is ill-conceived legislation and a knee-jerk reaction. This Government it seems has developed a tendency to panic. It gets itself into a spot panics then throws legislation into the House—usually under urgency like we are having today. That is not good government. It is a panicked response and inevitably leads to bad legislation. We have seen numerous examples just this year. I invite members to think back to that bizarre situation over the tax on alcopops which so-called young people are drinking. That was a classic example akin to this bill of this Government panicking and introducing a measure that clearly will not work. 
ACT New Zealand supports immigration. We say that immigration is a key part of our nation. In fact we are all immigrants in this country; it is just a question of what date our forebears arrived here. The strength of our economy has been based on immigration—the skills and the talents that new immigrants have brought here over many years. But there must be steady consistent immigration policy. Knee-jerk policy is the worst thing possible for immigration. It sends bad signals it creates distortions and it creates loopholes. I ask the Minister of Immigration how many loopholes are going to be created by the panicked knee-jerk reaction in this bill before us today. 
We know that this Minister has a hatred of immigration consultants. I think she has even said so publicly. She hates and despises immigration consultants. Unfortunately for her there are some very honourable immigration consultants. I can think just off the top of my head of three former Cabinet Ministers who are practising immigration consultants. This Minister has totally overreacted with this bill. When we look at this bill we can see what this is all about. The Association for Migration and Investment took her to court. It won. She lost. She appealed. Now she wants to change the law. This is retrospective legislation. She has had legal advice telling her that this is retrospective. It is bad legislation done in a panic in a knee-jerk manner. I am very fearful of the new loopholes and the new problems that it may create. 
When we consider the points system we see it has served us very well. In fact a former Labour Minister claimed credit for the points system and I quote David Caygill: “I support the points system and the Minister and other Government members might have been gracious enough to acknowledge that the Labour Government devised the points system. I do not say they invented it.” That was said by David Caygill in responding to Bill Birch in this House. This Government is overturning the existing categories and criteria and one of the real concerns that is terrifying those involved in immigration is the incredible discretionary powers that this bill will give to senior officials—senior immigration bureaucrats. The danger is that the bill will create massive inconsistencies throughout the country in different regions because of these delegated powers to senior bureaucrats. They are awesome powers. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They are already delegated. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes but what we have here is extended delegable powers and the real fear is that that will create regional inconsistencies. That is the point that the Minister does not seem to have grasped. She certainly has not consulted the immigration consultants. We have heard various reports on that today. She says she did not consult because they would have taken financial advantage of the situation if she had given them any warning. So rather than consult those who actually understand the business and actually understand what is required she went off on her own bat drafted this legislation and threw it into the House in a knee-jerk panicked manner. I say we should all be very fearful of the new loopholes— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: All good consultants have come out in favour of this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The ones I was listening to on the wireless this morning certainly have not. Perhaps the Minister tunes into a different station or perhaps she was not up that early. Certainly the immigration consultants that I have heard commenting on this bill are not in favour of it. 
We should bear in mind that their first chance to comment or even to examine it was after it had been introduced to this House and that is the real shame. There was no consultation. The bill was drafted by the Minister who was driven by her hatred for the immigration industry and we should all be very concerned about the new problems that it will inevitably create. Whenever this Government has panicked and brought in legislation under urgency it has always got it wrong. The sad thing is it does not learn. It keeps repeating the same mistake. We know that adults learn by their mistakes but it seems that this Cabinet does not learn by its mistakes. It keeps repeating the same mistake in this respect. 
ACT will be opposing this legislation. We believe that it is bad legislation and we are fearful of what it will do. It sends the wrong signals. It will not give stability. What about the people who have planned ahead and made the decision to immigrate? What bigger decision can people make than to immigrate to a new country—to bring their skills and their talents here? Now they find that the rules have changed on them after they have made their applications and after their applications have been received. It is retrospective; that is the worst aspect of this legislation.