Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6781] 
I too want to speak to what the Minister said in 1999 about these issues. The Minister can laugh about it— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not relevant. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am the judge of whether it is relevant. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says it is not relevant. It is relevant because on 15 June 1999 the Minister then in Opposition said things about the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). Well this is an Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). On that occasion she made great importance of parliamentary process and it comes directly to the commencement issues because this bill comes into effect long before what she said was “due process” long before people have had an opportunity to have a say and long before a select committee has had an opportunity to look at the bill. She also said it was wrong to override the provisions of an existing statute. The Minister cannot just laugh about it. Every member of the House wants the trade of politics to be held with respect. When she says things in this Parliament then as Minister does the exact opposite she brings the reputation of every single parliamentarian and every single Minister into disrepute—because she is overriding what she said. I say to the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel that she brings New Zealand’s good name into disrepute she brings parliamentarians into disrepute and she brings Ministers’ words into disrepute. I say that is wrong. The Minister cannot just laugh it off. She needs to get to her feet and give the Committee an explanation. Why is it that the words she said in 1999 when she was in Opposition do not apply now that she is in Government? What has changed? Is it the “Maharey principle”—the Labour standard? What has changed? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Government changed! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Cunliffe said the Government has changed. Well is that not a great standard of integrity from this Government! It says: “We’ll tell you one spin when we’re on the Opposition benches and we’ll tell you a completely different line when we’re in Government.” Is that the Labour Party’s policy? Why did Labour not tell the public about that when it went to the electorate in 1999? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: He can’t even turn up to court on time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Barker goes around saying that Labour honours its word. I say: “Bedevilled you honour your word!” Labour is doing exactly the opposite of what it said prior to the last election and that cannot be laughed off. I challenge Mr Barker to get to his feet and say what is different. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: At least I can get to court on time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well! He does not want to answer the question. Why did Labour say in 1999 that these sorts of bills should go to a select committee? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Get your hands out of your pockets. You can’t speak properly. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He wants to talk about the fact that I have my hand in my pocket. He wants to talk about every possible irrelevant thing. He does not want to talk about telling the truth. He does not want to talk about New Zealand’s reputation. He does not want to talk about whether we can rely on the word of this Minister. He does not want to talk about the rights of people who come to this country in good faith. He just wants to talk about whether my hand is in my pocket. Well I have to say to the Minister—and that Minister—that reputation counts and this Minister and this Government are muddying it.