Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1598] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 My colleague Annette King has just made a very very good point. For the benefit of those who did not hear it I tell them she said there was a nasty little ending to Pansy Wong’s speech—as usual for members from that party. Kate Wilkinson has spoken in this debate. Kate Wilkinson lives in my electorate and every time I challenge her her people write letters to the editor saying I should stop picking on Kate because she cannot hack being challenged in Parliament. Apparently it is a personal attack to challenge a member of the Government. 
I remind Pansy Wong who talked about the single investor category in the policy that the National Government introduced that it became a revolving door policy. The National Government introduced the policy and it encouraged passive investment. For the benefit of those who are listening to or who may be tuning into this debate I can tell them that that means an immigrant could bring in money— 
Hon Pansy Wong 
: Open the door! No one is coming! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think there is a squawk or something parrot-like coming from across the Chamber; I cannot quite make it out but the member may want to listen. National introduced a passive investment policy which meant that an immigrant could bring in a sum of money place it in a bank account passively gain residency—gain the status—ultimately gain a passport then send the money out to the next person in a revolving door fashion so that that person could use it as well. That was the legacy of Ms Wong. 
Labour changed that policy to an active investor policy. It may well have been less attractive to someone who wanted to rort the system because it meant that people had to bring investment funds into this country and actively invest them so that there could not be a revolving door policy whereby the funds were recycled over and over and over again and their mates could rort the system get residency get a passport then send the dough out. Of course that revolving door policy was Ms Wong’s legacy. It is the nasty little ending of her speech. 
The Immigration Bill is the biggest rewrite of immigration policy in two decades. In fairness to the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who is now the Speaker of the House—and I do not want to bring him into the debate inappropriately—I say I was at several forums with him when he was National’s spokesperson on immigration and to be generous I found he took a pretty non-partisan view in respect of this legislation. We all agreed that it was good legislation. He did not stand up and trumpet as Ms Wilkinson did that this bill shows the National Government’s commitment to immigration. Maybe it does but she did not write it her Government did not write it and in the initial stages the National Party opposed many of the facets within it. But I have to give the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith credit because in the latter days of his reign as the Opposition spokesperson on immigration he did indeed come to the party and I commend him for the logical way in which he looked at this legislation. 
Immigration law as always is a bit like the issue of law and order: it becomes a bidding war between the parties. The truth is that we have had parties in this House—some of which are not here now—that used immigration policy to ratchet things up and pick the scab off certain ugly facets of certain folk within New Zealand society. It would be fair to say that the race card has been played by some parties. From time to time normally around elections immigration policy becomes a bidding war between the parties. 
This is very good legislation because it future-proofs the law and brings us up to date with where technology is—with biotechnology. It also streamlines appeal rights—for instance it has a single independent appeals tribunal. But unlike what somebody at the back of the Chamber said when calling it bad legislation I say it does not do away with human rights. It streamlines the process but it does not allow people to abuse our taxpayer dollar and our process by illegitimately dragging the chain. 
For instance it does not degrade human rights to have all issues dealt with at the same time rather than having one appeal having that appeal decided then having another appeal on another ground and having that decided. I think that one could legitimately argue that taxpayers felt that the Zaoui case—and I do not challenge the decision—exhibited many facets of what I have described. This bill does not do away with human rights. It does not degrade the protections for migrants but it streamlines the process whereby they can be dealt with have their day before the tribunal and have their rights examined. 
I have to say though this may be unpalatable to my Green colleague that it is the role of this Parliament and of the Minister of Immigration—of any colour and of any party—to protect the border of New Zealand. The first responsibility of the Minister of Immigration—and I have been one—is to protect the borders of New Zealand. I say to that member and to others who criticise that stance that the only way they will create confidence within our communities is by letting into New Zealand the right the appropriate and the fantastic folks. 
I remember the  
Tampa  
and Helen Clark taking a huge stance on that issue. I remember the criticism she got from some members who are in this Chamber now—and from some who are not in the Chamber—and the race card being played on that issue. I met many of those young people— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Degree-qualified. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —as have my colleague Ruth Dyson and other colleagues in Christchurch. Those people are now degree-qualified. Sadly one has passed away through a tragedy that we know about. Helen Clark showed a ton of guts in saying we were going to do the right thing as Kiwis always do. She did that in the face of huge criticism some of it ignited by people who still sit in this Chamber which was made for reasons of political expediency. Helen Clark said that we were going to put a stake in the ground; that we were going to be humanitarian and we were going to do our bit as a global citizen. That stance paid off. 
David Bennett 
: Come on! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: From the cue ball opposite we have “Oh come on!”. Well this is a serious issue. I was at the citizenship ceremony of those kids from the  
Tampa 
 and I say they are wonderful citizens. They love being Kiwis and they are very grateful that our country stood by them and allowed them to come in. That is what this bill is about. 
The National members stand up and make comments that remind me a bit of Judith Collins’ comments when she was opening police stations—stations that Labour initiated funded and built. She said those stations were the result of her commitment to law and order. Kate Wilkinson stood up earlier and said this bill shows her Government’s commitment to immigration policy. Well that may be so. I think Lockwood Smith deserves more credit than Kate Wilkinson does; he did more work on it than she ever did. National members say this bill is their commitment to immigration but the test of course will be what they decide to do as their 3-year term progresses: whether they choose a humanitarian stance or otherwise in respect of immigration. I say again the only way we engender confidence in our community that we are letting the right people in is to ensure that the community has confidence that we are keeping the bad guys out. 
I do indeed pick up on Pete Hodgson’s comment. It will be interesting in the Budget round—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite laugh and scoff but it will be interesting to see whether the removals budget is contracted cut or suspended and whether those who are charged with removing people have been told not to do so. I know that for our Green brethren it is an unpalatable thought that anybody should be removed from this country but there are people who come out of prison after having broken our laws and committed crimes against our citizens and they should be removed and deported. Though the Green member may not think so it is appropriate to protect our border. But it will be interesting to see whether those in our Immigration Service who are charged with that task which is pretty awful I would think are actually given the resources—it will be interesting to see whether the resources are maintained and not cut. I am told as Mr Hodgson said that certain people believe the removals budget has been cut and that people have been told not to go and catch the bad guys not to go and remove those who abuse our system and make it difficult for those who do not and to suspend what they are doing because we want to save money. 
This is good legislation and I hope as we progress it through the House—and I say this in all sincerity—that we will not go down the road as other parties that are not here now did of picking off the scab and of picking on the most vulnerable people and using them as a target for politics. I think this legislation should be progressed. It does future-proof our Immigration Service and it does further professionalise those good human beings—our public servants—who administer the immigration legislation.