Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6725] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have heard some naive speeches in this House but that would be the most naive I have heard in recent times. That member says that after 3 months this very efficient Immigration Service will lapse all applications. Do members feel safe about that? Do they feel good about that? There are 20000 illegal overstayers in this country today. No one knows who they are where they are or what they are but all of a sudden we can rely upon United Future’s Immigration Service to find them when their applications expire after 3 months. [ 
Interruption 
] “Solar dome” can make all the noise he likes—he is not putting me off. He can make all the noises of a walrus and the smells as well but he will not put us off. 
The reality is Waikato University’s leading professor of geography the deputy vice-chancellor presented a paper just last year in which he said: “In total 190000 people including international students were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 2002 in New Zealand.” 
Dail Jones 
: How many? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was 190000. “However only 52800 were in the immigration category but a further 3000 were admitted under temporary work policies and 73000 were covered by student visas and permits.” But the issue gets more complicated. On page 2 of his document he says: “In the year ended June 2002 for example almost two-thirds of New Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who applied while they were in New Zealand on temporary work or student visas.” Almost two-thirds were here on work or student visas and permits. “Many of these people will be recorded in our stats as ‘short-term’ arrivals when in fact they become residents for 12 months or more as a result of changes in their residence status once they are in New Zealand.” What a sham! What a circus! 
Just last week as stated in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 
72 percent of the New Zealand population said they were against this immigration policy yet the United Future party on its way to political oblivion comes out and backs it. It backs the policy of a Minister who repeats a lie. In today’s document she says we are going to have various categories making up 45000 people excepting that is what she said 2 years ago and what are coming are not 45000 but 72000-plus. If we look at the categories—skilled business the family-sponsored stream the international humanitarian stream—we see there used to be a minus next to them; they used to be give or take 10 percent plus or minus. There is no minus now. Now in June 2003 there go the minuses and we are going to have 75000-plus people coming to this country mainly to Auckland where the roads are gridlocked and everybody around the rest of New Zealand pays extra tax because of it. 
What did the United Future man say? He said that this is all good for our economy. It is just amazing how naive people can be. Let me ask him this question: if it is so good for our economy why are we denying ourselves greater benefits? Why do we not have 275000 immigrants? Why is Australia not doing that? Why is Australia growing much larger and faster than us? Why is it taking almost the same number of immigrants as us although it is seven times larger? Why does the United States not do this or Canada or the UK or Ireland? They do not do it because they are not stupid. They are not sell-out merchants that deal to their civilization their culture in the way that these people are doing in allowing foreigners to colonise us from without. That is what is going on here. People who are just absolute—I cannot use the word but Quisling is the name of that man from the Second World War. I cannot use the word in this House but it is a form of sell-out unlike any I have known. 
The member says this is good for the economy. Mr Maharey was written to by a woman from Birkenhead. She wanted to know how many immigrants are on sickness benefits unemployment benefits student allowances and work schemes. She also wanted to know how many were being serviced by educational services health services or accident compensation or were in State housing. She could not get one answer. This is what Mr Maharey said: “The Ministry of Social Development does not hold the information in a way that allows me to respond to your request.” So why on earth is Business and Economic Research Ltd saying there will be a net benefit? It does not have the facts either. The Minister will not give them to it. Statistics New Zealand does not keep records for example of criminality on the basis of country of origin. So how does Business and Economic Research Ltd know how many criminals are coming here? How does it know about Asian crime? It does not. 
Janet Mackey 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know that member is embarrassed but let me tell the lady from Gisborne that in 2 years’ time when the election is over she will be gone; so will the United Future party. They will be gone on issues such as this. Although the bill says they have consulted all and sundry they never consulted the Maori people and they never consulted the New Zealand people. Poll after poll says they are wrong and they carry on regardless. In fact I would like to know where those Labour Party Maori members are today. They are always talking about their tino rangatiratanga their turangawaewae their land and their country. Every day those people sell it down the drain. Yes they want the foreshore and they want the seabed but there are no cockles at all in Cockle Bay today—not one. It is amazing. Do members know what people call that? 
David Benson-Pope 
: Luigi the Chinese member! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I say to “Solar Dome” that they call it treason. No amount of bluster on the part of the member from Dunedin is going to keep his job in Government. He will go within 2 years or whenever the Prime Minister flies the white flag. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the member suggesting that members of this House are guilty of treason? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I do. That is what I said. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s out of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it is not out of order; it is totally appropriate and that is why they did not object. I say to Mr Prebble that if the glove fits they can wear it. Let me come to the point. In August last year after the election the Department of Labour— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is absolutely out of order to suggest that an honourable member of this House is committing treason. I was not sure whether the right honourable gentleman was saying that but he told me that yes he was. I do not know which MPs he is saying were committing treason but whoever they are that is not in order and the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not hear that comment but I take the member’s word. I now ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to stand withdraw and apologise for the use of that word. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I withdraw and apologise. Last August the Department of Labour—the Minister’s own officials—presented her with an incoming briefing paper after the election. By their own admission every category of the immigration policy is a failure. Members should not believe New Zealand First; they should believe their own officials who were moved to say that every category was a failure. Now 300000 New Zealanders in this country or people who call themselves New Zealanders or pose as New Zealanders cannot speak English. The United Future party man said that this policy is great for New Zealand. I have asked him some fundamental questions. If the policy is so good why not make it so much better by bringing in 275000 people per year? The reality is that policy is nonsense. No other First World country pursues it. No other First World country would even entertain it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why is the member allowing anyone if this is such a bad place? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Every wise country has immigration policy designed around bringing in people the country needs not those who need the country. A country should bring in skilled people and it should make sure that immigration is not used to cover for it having failed to train skill and employ its own people first. It is that simple. A hundred thousand New Zealanders are out of work yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants. Now we are heading towards probably 800000 to a million within 20 years. We will have transformed this country in a way that no one would have contemplated all because this Government and others could not run a sound policy to keep New Zealanders here and were not concerned to train and employ their own people first. It is that simple. 
I want to make it very clear that we will oppose this bill because it carries on the same immigration policy and failure that that woman Lianne Dalziel is infamous for. If members watch the  
Holmes 
 show tonight they will see a “possum in the headlights” show. She will be on the show and members will see how pathetic she is when trying to defend herself against any reasonable debate. But she has parties like the United Future party in particular that for what reason I cannot explain back this policy even though the people who voted for United Future are opposed as much as any New Zealand First voter is to this sort of immigration mayhem going on in this country. I cannot understand it but of course I can tell those members that when the next election is held they will be gone. 
 I seek leave to table the  
New Zealand Journal of Geography 
 April 2003 which shows a dramatic drop in immigration in 1997-98 under New Zealand First. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.