Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6690] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Part 3 of the Immigration Bill contains the clause that will become known as section 52. That section replaces section 35A of the Immigration Act which we all are used to today. Of course every member of this House particularly constituency MPs who have undertaken constituency casework in the immigration area will know that this is the section under which cases are taken to the Minister of Immigration. Often it is the absolute last resort as somebody desperately tries to have his or her issues addressed. 
I do not want anyone to think that section 35A and the new section 52 are actually all about the most gut-wrenching of circumstances. I got into a taxi the other day and I had ordered the taxi using just my first name. The taxi driver picked me up from Parliament and when I got into the taxi he said: “It’s Lianne Dalziel isn’t it?”. I said yes and then he said that I was the reason that his mother-in-law is allowed to live in this country. It was so nice. This was really important because there had been a change in policy and we said that when we changed the policy we would allow a little more discretion a little more flexibility and a slightly more humanitarian approach over that transitional period. That is what we did for his mother-in-law. It was not part of an amnesty or transitional policy in that respect; she really did qualify under the previous policy but she missed out under the new policy. For the sake of the family who were well-settled in New Zealand we made a decision to intervene. 
Another case was recently brought to my attention by my sister. She spoke at a conference in a different city from the one where I live. My sister said that she had been picked up at the airport and that the woman who had picked her up had not realised that she was my sister until right at the very end of the presentation. My sister who is a very clever presenter on issues of privacy actually said to the audience—and I am getting a bit sick of it really—“I suppose you have all been wondering. No she is not my mother.” She continues to say that but I tell her that as she gets older she will not be able to say it any more. But this woman just froze and after everyone had gone as she was taking my sister away she burst into tears and hugged her. She said that I had saved her life. The reason she said that was that I had allowed her to come to New Zealand when she was at high risk of consequences from a severely violent domestic relationship in another country. She did not qualify under our strict criteria but under this provision—section 35A; the new section 52 as it will become known—we allowed her to stay. That is the importance of this clause. 
The reason I got up to speak on this part is that I think it is really important that we think very carefully about how this discretion is exercised. It must be exercised without fear or favour. There are National MPs in this House who know that I exercise that discretion without fear or favour. I recall that one of the very first phone calls I got after I became Minister of Immigration in 1999 was from Tony Ryall. He said he had had contact with people from Zimbabwe who were really concerned about their ability to get to New Zealand. They had relatives here. They could not buy a ticket home because they were not really going to go home and they asked whether there was something we could do about it. I took that to Cabinet straight away we intervened and we created a special policy that enabled a group of people to come to New Zealand. Thank goodness we did! If we look at the consequences of what happened to those who remained we will see that we did a very good thing. That was an approach from a National Party member. I think it is always important to remember that we are all members of Parliament representing our constituencies and those constituents must be treated without fear or favour. 
I will not go through the particular examples of the cases where I have felt it has been a bit disappointing of late in terms of the intervention. But if we do not hold on to that principle then we will lose it. I think it is very important that Ministers are able to look at the very human side of immigration which are circumstances that we ourselves would not think could possibly happen to us.