Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8291] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill. First since no one else has I thought someone should speak to the amendment moved by New Zealand First. I want to say a couple of things to the Committee. The first is that New Zealand First ought to explain its 100 percent change in policy. During the election campaign I was on a platform with Winston Peters and the number of permanent residents to come into New Zealand was 5000. A year later it has doubled. What has happened in the last 12 months? The Government has just arbitrarily picked out that figure. Then we were told by the youngest—I do not want to make a reference to his age—what is his name? 
Dail Jones 
: Craig McNair. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: —that the reason for that is that Craig McNair spent 2 hours in a traffic jam. I say to members who are not Aucklanders that I have no doubt that that is so but I say to Mr McNair that the idea that we would be living in a better country if we did not have any growth and development is ridiculous. The ACT party is in favour of an active immigration policy. We have no doubt that it makes a positive economic contribution to the country as well as a positive cultural contribution and if we had a figure of only 10000 migrants to New Zealand we would have a net loss of population. I have been in towns where there is a net loss. Mr McNair should visit a former mining town to see whether he would like to go and live there. There is nothing more depressing. 
The next thing he should realise is that although it is true that immigrants produce a bit of pressure on our hospitals and other systems it is nothing compared with the positive contribution they make. Our universities would be in dire straits if they did not have overseas students and I am surprised that New Zealand First does not know that. I also find that New Zealand First’s contribution to this debate for a party that states that it concentrates on immigration is very disappointing. One would think that New Zealand First members would also be turning to the mechanisms that are to be applied. They have not got up and explained to us how they would do it and how they would select those 10000 people. The Minister indicated that truck drivers would not qualify for permanent residence because permits are going to skilled people only. That is interesting. I ask the Minister where skills start and what her definition of “not skilled” is. If the truck driver is an owner-driver of a truck that is worth maybe half a million dollars is that a skilled occupation? How does she work out those sorts of arbitrary lines? That is the problem that I find with the bill. 
It appears to me that what the Minister is moving towards—which would appeal to a Minister of Immigration—is a situation in which the Minister can make totally arbitrary decisions that are actually unfair not based on the real evidence unjust and with no appeal at all. There is a name for Governments like that. They are called police States. I note that New Zealand First in its notes referred to a person who gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who had been a lawyer in South Africa and who said that the bill reminded him of aspects of South African law. That worries me. Coming from a Government with a rule of law we think ministerial discretion ought always to be able to be reviewed. Although this Minister may not be unfair and discriminatory this bill is not just for this Minister and this Government but—heaven help us—maybe for a New Zealand First Government and we ought to be in a position— 
Dail Jones 
: Hear hear! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member who is interjecting is an immigrant to this country. I do not hold that against him. He is making a very good contribution but I find it strange when I hear Cockney voices—that member’s deputy leader—warning us against immigration. I say to the Committee that I would like to hear the Minister explain why she believes that not only herself but also future Ministers of Immigration including possibly a New Zealand First Minister of Immigration should not be subject to appeal. If that Minister is making unfair arbitrary decisions that are in contradiction to the facts and that are based on prejudice—even racial prejudice—should there not be the ability to have an appeal?