Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6763] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: That member who is very happy to support a very good bill as he says gave it precious little time in this House to point out its so-called good points. But the reality of it all is that the Minister of Immigration just the other night was asked a question about whether she had brought this Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) to Parliament to offset her dramatic loss in a court case and she had the effrontery to say no when every other New Zealander knows that the answer is yes. 
But my real point is this: from the kind of speech made by Mr Kelly and members of the United Future party—whatever “United Future” means—it is clear they do not understand at all what is going on. If those men from the United Future party do not believe me they should have a look at today's  
Dominion Post 
 where a so-called independent source comes to the same conclusion. If we look on page 1 we see these words in respect of the changes: “But they could also benefit foreign tertiary students including many from China. She indicated they would get priority especially if they had a job offer.” What it all means is pretty significant. If we look at the Waikato University analysis of just the end part of 2002 we see that it says that in total 190000 people including international students were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 2002. Then it says that only 52800 were in the “immigrant” category—their quotes not mine. What that really tells us is that 137200 are in the category described in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
. 
In short I say to the Minister that she has no idea whatsoever what she is doing. The Minister has no idea whatsoever as to what she is up to. She went on radio this morning and said: “Oh this bill will not affect anybody in New Zealand.” Again that is utter poppycock. She has no idea whom it will affect because she simply has not had the analysis done and simply because as Waikato University pointed out in its analysis thus far something like two-thirds ofNew Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who applied while they were in New Zealand on temporary work or student visas and permits. The Minister is shaking her head and saying no. That trade union lawyer has got the effrontery to argue that a person who is a professor of geography and deputy vice-chancellor is wrong and she is right. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no—it is just arrogance of the worst sort. He says that in the year ended 30 June 2002 for example almost two-thirds of New Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who had applied while they were in New Zealand on temporary work or student visas or permits. I recall being in China in 1997 and this country giving China an undertaking that the students we took from that country under our new visa arrangements would all be sent home. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes we did. The Minister was not there so she does not know. I was and I do. The Chinese Government specifically said: “Would you make sure though in making these new visa arrangements”—which were new were being introduced for the first time ever—“that they are all sent back home.” Now we find that two-thirds of those who get approval actually came here under the category of work or student visas or permits. 
What is amazing about this Minister’s policy is that we know it takes 3 percent of gross domestic product to provide work for those students who leave schools or tertiary institutions in our country. It takes 3 percent of gross domestic product. We have always known that; we have known that for 40 to 50 years. But we have gross domestic product of 2 percent coming up and probably worse so we will not be able to provide for our own students who are leaving our universities and schools yet in will come not the 45000 on the Minister’s fact sheet but something like 72000-plus which is the current rate of people migrating to this country. What does it mean? It means more gridlock more demand on services and more charges that are a loss for the New Zealand people. 
There is one other thing I want to say while I am on the question of the bill before us. The Minister in seeking to get around the case she lost on 16 May of this year and having said on I think 17 June this year that she was going to go to a higher court of appeal namely the Court of Appeal—she said she had such a good case that she was going to appeal—decided that somehow she might have got it wrong and that she should bring a bill to Parliament and get a bunch of wide boys with no experience namely the United Future party to back it so that the Government could get it through. 
Edwin Perry 
: Did she win? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No she lost. But never mind that trade union lawyer said: “Don’t worry about it. I know that the High Court got it wrong. I will go off to the Court of Appeal and I will have that decision overturned.” So why did she not have it overturned? How can we believe a Minister who says no when asked whether that was the reason for the bill? What sort of integrity has such a Minister got? Barefaced! And the other proponent in that case sitting on the other side of the television set someone called Milnes knew it was not true as I knew it was not true. Of course we had the “deer in the headlights” performance again where her idea was: “I’ll just keep talking—no matter if I don’t make any sense—and make sure that they can’t get a word in edgeways.” There it was—open mouth disengaged brain let it all go! But unfortunately it did not look good on television. Just to make sure I asked my colleagues how the Minister looked. They said: “Actually Winston it was pathetic and sad.” 
It is sad that Labour should think that on this key issue a determinant for the next election it can get away with saying it has changed the policy. But the  
Dominion Post 
 is on to it. The  
Dominion Post 
 knows that Labour has not changed the policy. If we look at the bill we see again that all the Government has done is reshuffle the immigration queues and worse still deny tens of thousands of people their rights. 
My question to Mr Hereora who is about to rise to his feet—and I hope he makes a longer speech than Georgina Beyer did; she spoke for 30 seconds—is this: can we have 10 minutes on how this bill is good for the tangata whenua whom he claims to represent? How is the bill good for south Auckland Maori? Perhaps he can tell us how many Maori around the marae of this country support mass immigration of 72000 foreigners per year? Before he rises perhaps he can ask Mr Horomia what Ngati Porou think of all of this. Frankly we are sick to death of what I call “Sunday afternoon Maori”. On a Sunday afternoon they get out and parade their Maoriness but when they get down to Parliament on Tuesday they forget about the people who put them there. [ 
Interruption 
] They stand for Maori seats; do members realise that the proportion of Maori seats is less now than it ever was in history? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Do members realise— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What nonsense! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Chris Carter says: “What nonsense!” Who does he represent? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: 50000 people in Te Atatu. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No he does not. If it were not for the Labour Party he would not have made it to Parliament. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I have got a bigger majority than you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No the member does not. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It’s true. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member should not make himself look silly. I say to him: “Do not make me laugh!”. He does not. The reality of it all is that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave for an extension of time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for an extension of time. Is there any objection? There is.