Smith Nick: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6772] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: That was an extraordinary contribution from Paul Adams. While he accuses other parties of singing from the same record we just wish the United Future party would keep calling from the same record. We see in this bill the exact opposite of what the electorate was told the United Future party would bring to Parliament; it said it would bring good parliamentary process. How many lectures have I had to listen to in this Chamber from the Hon Peter Dunne about good parliamentary process? What is good I ask Mr Adams about announcing a bill at 4 p.m. yesterday and taking it through all stages under urgency this week with zero public consultation? How can we justify that I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel in terms of her track record and public comments? Does the Minister deny what she said in Parliament on 15 June 1999? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No I do not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Why did the Minister change her mind I ask her? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Because this is a different set of circumstances. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
 There we have it. Even the Minister could not keep a straight face when she said that “this is a different set of circumstances”. 
The Minister and the Labour Government have now been in office for 3 years and 8 months. The policies that the Government proposes to change have been in place for all that period. Why I ask the Minister does Parliament need to change in a day a policy that has been in place for 15 years? Why is she treating this Parliament with such disrespect? Even though the court decision came down in May it was good enough for the Minister to have 6 weeks. It was good enough for Labour to sit on this policy for 4 years but New Zealand’s Parliament is being asked to ride roughshod and push this bill through in less than 24 hours. I say that that is an outrage. 
I ask the members of the United Future party whether that is what they meant when they said they would stand up for proper parliamentary process. I think not. Is it not interesting how the United Future party was to be the new migrants party? United Future members were to be a great multicultural lot who would stand up for the rights of migrants yet they act as the doormat any day that the Government wants to push through legislation to trample all over the rights of people who have in good faith set aside money and made life plans to come to this country and who are now being ridden over roughshod. 
In all those greasy meetings of the Prime Minister and the Minister in the chair when they dribbled all over migrants—whether they be from Asia North America or Europe—the Labour Party said it was the pro-migrant party. But when the Minister scratches a bit of an itch whammo she is prepared to dump all over them. And thousands of people will have made life decisions on the basis of the assurances given by this Minister. She is wrecking lives by trampling all over people retrospectively. She thinks it is funny; she thinks it is a joke. I ask the Minister why she will not give those people the right to be heard at a select committee. Why will United Future not even give the people who are affected by the changes in this bill the opportunity to be heard at a select committee? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: For what purpose? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it could be to be heard. It could be that migrants have a point of view. It could be something to do with what she said in 1999: that this process was a breach of United Nations principles. In 1999 Lianne Dalziel raved on about great process and accused the Government of breaching the United Nations principles saying “This is not how the Labour Party will work in practice.” and that is exactly what this Government is doing. It is riding roughshod over good parliamentary process. 
This bill will be a mess. Legislation that is passed in this sort of rushed process always ends up doing things that are not intended and I say the Minister should rethink.