Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6750] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The deputy leader of the Labour Party is going to be terribly embarrassed because in this particular case the Government actually did decide its policy. The Government had a policy and the judge made the point that it did not carry it out properly. That was the fault of the case. The policy was there; it was clear but it was not administered properly. That is why we keep on saying that this Minister of Immigration must go. She does not know how to do her job. That is what it is all about. 
Mr Cullen has not understood the court case. Obviously he was not at the briefing and has not been in touch with the Minister of Immigration. He has not understood this bill. As Pansy Wong said we know what the Government’s policy was. It was clear and everyone lodged their applications based on the Government’s policy. All of those 20000 people whether they were from Taiwan China or goodness knows where were abused in an insulting way by this minority Labour Government in terms of their command of the English language. They filled out their applications properly using good English. They were carrying out the Government’s policy decisions just as the Labour Party absolutely messed it up. That is all that Justice Randerson was saying—that the Government did not do its job properly. The Government had all those cases that it was very embarrassed about. So what did it do? It decided it was not happy with the decision the High Court judge made and would break every constitutional precept by repealing it by legislation. Have we not heard that somewhere before? This time it is doing it. One just wonders what it is doing in the back rooms even today. What do the Maori members have to say about that? One just wonders what is going on behind closed doors. 
The deputy leader of the Labour Party Dr Michael Cullen would have assessed the situation as a history professor and in that fashion he got it wrong. But looking at it from a legal viewpoint Murray McCully in the very early party of this debate made the position clear as in her lucid fashion did Pansy Wong. We all understood her so clearly. She and I get on very well these days. One has to be very careful. We got close on the Business Law Reform Bill and we are getting close on this bill as well. Someone is going to start talking soon. I cannot always understand what she says which is perhaps a shame—or good for her I am never quite sure. But Pansy Wong was lucid on this bill she was clear and she got it right. It is just that Dr Michael Cullen got it absolutely wrong. The Labour Party was trying to carry its policy out but it did so ineffectually and badly. That is why New Zealand First has said time and time again that this Minister must go. 
What do we have here that is being rushed through under urgency? The whole situation is confused by there being two immigration bills one of which is to go to the select committee. As we all know with the first bill the Government is giving itself wide powers to do virtually what it likes. It is going to the select committee but it contains nothing specific. The Government talked about how it would use the first bill but it contains nothing specific. All we know about the Labour Party policy is what the geography professors at Waikato University indicated which is that to the year ended 2002 190000 people came into New Zealand as a result of Labour Party policies. Only 52000 of those migrated in the normal way; 75000 were students; and another 65000 or so were people looking for work permits. I presume that those 65000 would have been part of this potential group. The Labour Party has abused the plaintiffs in this action because it seems that all the applicants were overseas. Just because they were not in New Zealand the Labour Party has derided them making snide remarks about the fact that they were overseas. What does that do for New Zealand’s status in East Asia? What does it do for New Zealand and China? What does it do for New Zealand and Taiwan? 
At the last election New Zealand First said that far too many people were coming into New Zealand and now we discover that in the year ended 2002 190000 came here as immigrants one way or another. On almost the first day I was in Parliament which was in September last year there were cries about New Zealand First being racist. What do we have here today? We have a Labour Party that is denying about 46000 applicants—the figure seems to be somewhat confused but it is 20000 plus—the right they had and that the High Court judge said they had to apply to come to New Zealand. Is there something about those people that the Labour Party did not like? Is it the great example of the pot calling the kettle black? That seems to be what it boils down to. 
I get very disturbed and I think that all of us in New Zealand First are very annoyed that we should have borne all that criticism and now we are being proved right about the number of people coming into New Zealand about the pressure that is being placed on the northern and Auckland motorways about the fact that Auckland is falling further and further behind with its roading problems under this Labour Government and about the hospitals the schools and the like. Despite the fact that the Labour Government is cancelling these applications it still maintains that it is bringing in 55000 people although we know from the figures that that number is really 190000—and those are not New Zealand First figures; they are the figures of the professors of geography at Waikato University based on the statistics of the New Zealand Immigration Service. 
I remind the Minister of the question she was asked by the television interviewer this evening. As I recall it she was asked: “You’re bringing this bill in aren’t you because of the High Court decision?” And what did she say? I think she said “No”. Mind you she was so over the top of everybody else that it was hard to hear. But I think she said “No” and it confirms to me that she said that she did not bring in this legislation because of that decision. It is clear from everyone who has spoken in the House and who has read page 2 of the explanatory note of the bill that she misled the television interviewer and the country. If it had happened in the House I would have expected her to stand up and apologise. But one never holds one’s breath waiting for Labour Party Ministers to do that—that is if they understood what was actually being said which is also a difficult thing for them to grasp sometimes. 
The explanatory note very clearly states that “following the decision of the High Court in  
New Zealand Association for Migration and Investments Incorporated 
 v  
Attorney General ( 
unreported M1700/02) the issue and grant of temporary and limited purpose visas and permits may be required as a matter of Government residence policy.” It says they “may be required as a matter of Government residence policy”. I wish Dr Cullen had read the explanatory note. It is very very clear that what was being done was a matter of Government policy. The bill ensures—to put it in layman’s terms—that in no circumstances will this Labour Government support a decision by the High Court on the issue and grant of temporary and limited purpose visas. What sort of Governments do we have today when they will allow people to go to court? They contest the case in court then when they lose—and they are bad losers—they decide that the simplest thing to do is to pass a bill that cancels the court case. All this bill really does is cancel a court case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about those guys? 
DAIL JONES 
: And of course there is United Future. I thank the member for reminding me—I was so away with my stream of thought. The only party supporting this minority Labour Government and allowing this legislation to go through is United Future. I am pleased to hear that the Greens have principles and will oppose this legislation. I give them full credit for that. I often give them something else but I give them full credit on this occasion. It is becoming quite common in this House for us to be critical of United Future. 
This legislation cancels constitutional rights and it cancels a High Court decision. This legislation allows this incompetent Minister of Immigration to continue in her office and it is being supported only by the minority Labour Government supported by United Future. That is all that is allowing this legislation to continue. It is a disgrace. When I get back and speak to some of those people in the Waitakere and Albany areas—people who might have supported United Future—boy oh boy are they going to be even more upset and the support for United Future will go down the tubes. 
New Zealand First wants to make sure that we do not have an overabundance of immigrants to the extent of the 50000 60000 and 190000 that we have today. This bill does not do anything to stop that. Under this bill we will still have the same rush of immigrants that we had before. We cannot support that and we oppose this legislation.