McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8274] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Listening to the early part of the discussion on Part 1 I was intrigued to see that Mr Adams on behalf of United Future was very quick to put up his hand and claim some responsibility jointly with the Minister of Immigration for this legislation. But I noted he was silent on the question I had asked earlier which was whether his party was one of the Government caucuses referred to in the letter from the Minister that sought acquiescence in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 131 which will come before the Committee in relation to Part 2. Maybe next time Mr Adams gets to his feet he will do the Committee the courtesy of giving it an honest answer to a fair question. He stood up and claimed credit then in trying to work out what he was taking credit for fumbled his way through a bunch of research unit notes which he clearly had not read before and of which he had no understanding. 
I say to Mr Adams that next time he decides to address the Committee we would be obliged to him if he was to answer the perfectly legitimate question that I asked him which was whether the United Future caucus was one of the caucuses that the Minister has told other leaders she consulted and got approval from in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that inserts a new clause 15A. It is a perfectly fair question. Was he awake in the caucus meeting this morning? He does not even know whether he was there let alone whether he was awake. It looks rather good does it not? 
What I want to say in relation to Part 1 is that—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has decided to come back into the Chamber having had Parliament retrospectively validate his presence here. If the member wants to take a call he can take a call but it would be the first time he made any sort of contribution in the Chamber to a subject of this complexity. 
 Part 1 is a very important part of this bill because clause 3 spells out some of the objects of this legislation. The piece that I want to refer to in particular with approval is the statement that “… New Zealand’s interests are paramount as opposed to the present entitlement model;”. I am not sure what “entitlement model” actually means; I have heard the Minister use the expression a few times and I do not have a particularly partisan view about it. I actually like to see the statement that New Zealand’s interests are paramount and the basis of our immigration policy. I certainly approve of that and indeed I advocated something similar in a discussion paper that I circulated within my own party a little while ago so I do not have any problem with it. But paragraph (b) of clause 3 states: “provide greater control over and more effective management of the quality and number of applications for residence visas and residence permits;” and that is the bit I have some questions about. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: He needs an empty glass of water not a full one. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I need someone to taste this before I am prepared to drink it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Turn it into wine. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I wonder whether Mr Hide might like to nominate a food taster for me. 
I think the key questions in relation to this bill can be summed up by reference to paragraph (b) of clause 3. The question one has to ask is who will have greater control over and exercise more effective management of the quality and number of applications for residence visas and residence permits. To me that seems to go to the very heart of this legislation. The concern I have about it in relation to all the discussions I have heard—and I was not a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but I have read some of the submissions that were made—is that there are concerns abroad that there will be capricious decision-making or at least decision making that is less than even-handed if we have a system that is less transparent and less predictable than the current points model. I say to the Minister that that is a legitimate concern.