Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6744] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I say to the member who has just made a contribution that she was obliged to give the House a decent speech on this matter. We are debating a very serious matter. This bill is being passed under urgency and therefore cannot be referred to the public. 
The bill does two things. It not only lapses applications as the member said—and I will come back to that later—but also overturns a High Court decision. That High Court decision was not an idle one. It was made by Justice Randerson. I have a copy of it. Members can get it from the library. I would like to think that Labour Party members all got a copy of it before they decided to agree with the Minister cavalierly telling us that a High Court judge is wrong. I found that extremely arrogant. The judge made a 60-page decision which the Minister publicly said she would take to the Court of Appeal and now has decided not to. I ask whether United Future members have read that decision. Before United Future decided to allow this Parliament to overturn a court decision did anyone of its members read the decision? 
An Hon Member 
: No! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No they did not. 
Ron Mark 
: They’re just poodles. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: They are absolute poodles. This bill not only overturns that decision but also does something else that this House never does. When we decide to change the law we normally say that those who have had their day in court will not have the fruits of their victory taken away from them. In this case the Government has decided to do that as well. What does that say about the rule of law? I know that the Government is suddenly going in for doing that and saying to people that they cannot bring property claims any more. In this case the Government has picked on a group of people who have hired lawyers gone to court and found out that they were right. This Government has not only changed the law but also has said that those people who went to court are to have their rights taken away. I can see why the Minister wants to do that under urgency. There is such a thing as fair play and a having fair go but the Government has taken no notice of either of those. Since when has the law been as the Minister told us: “Oh I’ve got a Cabinet paper that says I meant it to be something different.”? That is not the law of the land. Police States do that sort of thing. It is the statutes passed by this House that count. 
Members should know what this case is all about. I will read from the judgment: It starts off: “With effect from midnight on 19 November 2002 the Minister of Immigration introduced significant changes to immigration policy under the Immigration Act 1987. For present purposes the relevant changes fall into two broad categories. First for people applying for residence in the general skills category there was a tightening of the English language standard and for those who later made an associated application for a job search visa there was a requirement that the applicant have qualifications to obtain employment in New Zealand in an area of occupational shortage.” The applicants went to court and said: “I’ve come to New Zealand. I’m seeking a job. Basically I did it under a contract from the Government that if I found a job offer I would have a job made available to me.” This Government is saying to that group of people—people who have spent many times their life savings—that we will overturn that decision. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not one in New Zealand. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I see. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not of the ones who were seeking job search visas. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: None of those are in New Zealand. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The 20000 in New Zealand will get residence. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: They will get residence? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes they will. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Then why is the Minister passing this legislation? Who are the people affected? [ 
Interruption 
] I asked the Minister a straight-out question under urgency. She has interrupted me. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’ve already answered it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She has already answered it. If we are allowed to have a media press conference and be prepared to go out and talk to every group in the country about the bill why can the Minister not talk to an elected member of Parliament? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The member should do his homework. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Now I am told to do my homework. I was only told about this bill at 4.15 p.m. today. In fact I went to three different offices in the building to try to find out where the briefing was. Mr Peters did not even find it. The Minister did not even tell him. Now I am trying to ask her questions across the House. 
I ask United Future members who support this bill what sort of legislative procedure this is. I did do some homework. I had a look at this decision and on page 31 I read the statement by the judge. It seemed to me to be pretty straightforward. He said that the purpose of section C was undoubtedly to give an applicant and his family or her family an assurance that their residence application would be processed on the basis of policies existing at the date of their application. That is what he said the law is. I asked the Minister where her moral authority is to change that decision. She said her moral authority is that her statement of the law is correct. If that is so the Minister should go to the Court of Appeal. She should have the Court of Appeal uphold her. We all know that her own legal advisers have told her that when she made her decision at midnight on 19 November she was wrong. She was wrong legally and she has stripped away those peoples’ rights. She now tells us not to worry about those people as they are not in New Zealand. Well I say to the Minister what about the honour and integrity of New Zealand? What about the honour and integrity of the New Zealand Government? 
This Government accepted money. It accepted people’s applications. People put their lives on hold to come to this country thinking that this was a Government that was committed to the rule of law and that the United Future party was bringing decency into public life that they were going to do their research and that they would not be doormats. Those people thought they would be able to come to a land of opportunity. Instead they found that we have a Minister of Immigration who is prepared under urgency to try to get what she cannot get in the courts and then go one stage further and take away from them—from people who do believe in the rule of law—the benefits of their court victory. 
Maybe we have done that before. I do not know. I ask Mr Peters whether he can remember when we have reversed a court case and taken the victory away from those who had won. I cannot think of one. Perhaps members opposite who have done their research can think of a case where the New Zealand Parliament has not only reversed a case but also then taken away the victory of those who went to court. If members opposite can think of such a case—I am sure they debated it in their caucus—then when was it? When did it happen? When have we had a Government that has acted in this way? Or do they say that it does not matter as none of them are voters? That appears to be the standard Ms Dalziel is following. 
I say to the House that this is an outrage. It is absolutely wrong. It is an abuse of our powers. We do not have a written constitution. We depend upon members of Parliament to uphold what is right and decent. We depend upon people like the last speaker to read the bill and to decide to do justice and to do justice to everyone—not just to New Zealand citizens but to people who trusted this Government and who trusted New Zealand enough to give us some money fill out application forms and put their lives on hold to come here only to be treated by the Labour Party and the United Future party in this contemptible fashion. I will vote against this measure.