Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6814] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: That was a very revealing speech in many aspects and I will come to some of those. ACT New Zealand certainly supports planned orderly migration and we celebrate diversity in this country—that is basic ACT policy. We do not share the somewhat xenophobic views of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think the comments that the Leader of the House has just made really highlight a number of issues. He made the comment that half of Mr Peters can enjoy his customary rights while the other half can eat his haggis and blow his bagpipes. But that really hits the very nerve of the foreshore and seabed debate which the Leader of the House introduced. We recognise diversity but say there should be one law for all. We are all New Zealanders and there should be a single sovereignty. 
No other Government in history has talked about dual sovereignty to the extent that this Government has running the notion that we will somehow have separate and different rights according to the particular date when one of our ancestors may have arrived here. The reality is that every person in this country is either a migrant or a descendant of a migrant. We can argue about how many generations one might have to go back but one would only have to go back 30 generations to reach the first settlers in this country and that is nothing in global terms. We are all migrants or descendants of migrants and there should therefore be one law for all. We should not have the race-based laws that this Government is constantly bringing to this Parliament. The Leader of the House tripped himself up in quite an extraordinary way in the speech he just gave. 
However the real concern with regard to this bill is with the process that has been adopted. This is a panic bill that has been brought to the House as a knee-jerk reaction under urgency something that has become the trademark of this Government. Every time that this Government thinks it has a little problem in the wee small hours of the evening it has a panic situation quickly drafts out legislation brings it to the House and tries to rush it through under urgency with no select committee consideration no submissions and not even any consultation. The Minister sat in the chair during the Committee stage and was proud of the fact that there was no consultation with those who understand this issue best. That is a very arrogant way to bring about legislative change. It always ends in tears because inevitably people get it wrong. 
We know—the Minister admitted this—that the Minister first gave drafting instructions for this bill on 23 June. That was only 6 working days ago which emphasises what a rushed job and knee-jerk reaction this bill is. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Stop misleading the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am just repeating to the House what she told us in the Committee stage. It is in  
Hansard  
and we can go back to  
Hansard 
. The Minister came scurrying back down to the House when we challenged her and said that only part of it was drafted post-23 June trying to cover herself. However that was what she told us in the Committee stage. 
There are real concerns here with regard to the retrospective consequences of this legislation. We know what drove the Minister: the immigration consultants took legal action against her. They went to court and won. When she lost she put out an announcement that she would appeal. She then thought that rather than go through the courts she would use her power to legislate and close down the options. In doing so there is a retrospective impact on some 20000 applicants which we are led to believe affects some 46000 people all of whom had legitimate expectations. Their expectations are being dashed by this Minister in her hasty knee-jerk reaction to this issue. 
We do want orderly migration. I would not suggest for a moment that the law as it stands is perfect. It is not. The law is in dire need of some reform but I am not satisfied that the Minister is going about it in the right way. Amending the law in indecent haste as she is is certainly not the way to attack that issue. 
I am also very concerned about the so-called loading for regional locality. People will somehow be given a special priority if they are prepared to live in Invercargill Gore Timaru or somewhere other than Auckland. We know those sorts of policies do not work; they never work. Families might start off in those places but if it is their wont within 3 or 6 months they will be in Auckland. Do members remember the very large numbers of Vietnamese refugees who came to this country— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As the Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out this debate has been too wide. It must come back to this particular bill. I know that reference can be made to the bill that we have already sent off to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but only reference to it. The member cannot make most of his speech on it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The point I was making was that the core part of this bill gives a loading according to the proposed location of a potential migrant. 
Darren Hughes 
: The other bill did that! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: There is an implication of that in this bill and that is my point. The effect of that will the same in terms of what it is replacing as the effect of the old points system. Be that as it may the point I make is that most of the Vietnamese and Cambodian migrants who came to this country have since moved on to Sydney or Melbourne. That is the reality and that is why the earlier bill that this Government brought in today was as equally bad and faulty as this bill. 
Part 2 is the real concern. That concerns the validation of the processing of applications. We see there that any past mistakes order or processing of an application that has been messed up done wrong or lacks justice is deemed to be valid. Just with the stroke of a pen clause 5(1)(a) deems it to be valid. However the situation becomes worse than that because in clause 5(b) no appeal rights are granted. People cannot appeal and there is no review process. Any mistakes that the bureaucrats make are deemed to be valid. That is not good legislation. This Minister comes here to the House puffing herself up crowing what a wonderful job she is doing and singing her own praises. She has a standard letter that she always brings to the House and reads out to us time and time again. 
Ron Mark 
: She told us we were wrong in the election. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is right. She always gets it wrong. Those provisions are of deep concern as well as the first part of the bill. In common law people can bring a writ of mandamus. Where bureaucrats are not following due process or doing their job and are sitting on their hands or dragging their feet citizens have the right to bring to the courts a writ of mandamus. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They’re not citizens; they’re not even in the country. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Not the way this bill reads! It states that any past mistakes or inactions are deemed to be valid—no appeal and no right of review. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There will be one day. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: There will be one day. When there is a change of Government there will be and that is not too far away. I would be prepared to place a bet with any member on the Government side of the House on that one. There are no takers on that at all. 
This is bad legislation. ACT along with other Opposition parties will oppose it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Good news! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The Minister thinks that it is good news? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I think it is good news that the member has just shown how ridiculous the position of the ACT party is. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Not at all! We support good immigration policy. I said at the outset that we support that. This is not good immigration policy. This is a knee-jerk reaction. The Minister panicked 6 days ago fired out instructions to the bureaucrats to prepare a draft bill and brought it to the House under urgency with no select committee consideration and no public submissions. If she truly has confidence in this legislation why did she not invite public submissions? Why did she not let it go to a select committee? She has not answered those questions. The bill stands condemned by the Minister’s own actions.