Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1607] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Immigration Bill. If the Hon Mr Cosgrove thought Pansy Wong’s speech had a nasty little ending to it then perhaps I am to be accused of starting with a nasty little beginning because although I agree with the member for Dunedin North that the law in itself does not make a world-class Immigration Service I believe the failure to pass the necessary legislation that creates the environment for such a service to thrive certainly creates its own problems. I also wonder whom Mr Hodgson looks to as the cause of any problems—if indeed they exist—with the Immigration Service after his having had 9 years on the Treasury benches. But this is not really the time for petty gibes. With the exception of the Greens I think we have pretty much bipartisan support for the passage of this legislation and I think that is as it should be with regard to legislation that is just too important to be treated as a political football. 
I also congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of the previous Parliament which had the unenviable task of carefully considering this bill and the very many submissions on it. I have obviously carefully considered all 525 pages of the bill in the time available and I have to say that I admire anybody who has been able to do so with that level of detail. 
These are challenging times for immigration. In the 22 years since the original Act was passed there have been three pretty significant changes. One is that citizens—and in particular New Zealanders—travel in far greater numbers and far more frequently than they have ever travelled before and the second is that the technology available to store and process the information has reached levels of sophistication that we probably did not even imagine in 1987. Thirdly as we all know and as some of us have discussed tonight there are risks posed by organisations and individuals who are a threat and who seek out New Zealand as a safe harbour and as a place from which to carry out their illegal activities. Those risks are ever-present and probably increasing. It is entirely appropriate I think that we bring our legislation into the 21st century and into line with those environmental changes. Of course those changes will continue and the legislation needs to have built into it the necessary nimbleness and flexibility to enable it to be current now and into the future. 
The fundamental roles of good immigration law are firstly—obviously—to protect our country’s citizens and secondly to provide a process for the fair and equitable consideration of applications by people who want to come into our country. Obviously these are not normal times particularly when we talk about risk. Although Dr Norman may not admit it the fact of the matter is that the people who want to do us harm will not be honest. It seems obvious to say that but it really needs to be mentioned. I say that in the context of Dr Norman’s concerns which were shared by people who made submissions to the select committee that some of the provisions around the classification of information might be misused. I think the select committee has come up with a very pragmatic response to that real risk. 
But I think Dr Norman needs to be careful because the implication he makes that the authorities would seek to use the powers accorded them under this legislation to unreasonably remove genuine refugees is frankly an insult to those public servants and is very disappointing. I say that notwithstanding the case involving Mr Zaoui and I think it is also worth considering to some degree what might have happened had Mr Zaoui’s case been considered under this legislation. The fact of the matter is that the outcome might well have been the same as it was but I do not think anybody in this House would argue that the process would have been smoother more efficient and fairer on Mr Zaoui and on the people of this country. 
Just as the member for Wellington Central has said as a new MP the issues of immigration have been a surprisingly material factor in the constituent inquiries that I have had to deal with in my short time as a MP. They are extremely emotional issues. My own perception of the process is that certainly improvements could be made to take some of the stress out of the application process in particular where there are quite obvious grounds for doing the right thing especially in the likes of family residency applications. Those applications presently take between 12 and 18 months to consider which is certainly well outside the time frame for the expiry of visitors’ visas. 
It is also interesting to speculate on the issue of the  
Tampa 
 situation. Personally I would accept that there was quite a serious and legitimate concern about the risks that the  
Tampa 
 refugees posed and there was obviously a very successful outcome. I see that as a journey on the path to enlightenment but that does not mean those situations are without risk. Therefore there needs to be a very real framework within which those applications can be considered carefully. I might be so cheeky as to suggest that the Prime Minister of the day’s decision to support those refugees was probably as much political as it was humanitarian. She backed a winner on that occasion. 
In summary I would like to support the bill. I do so for the reasons that have been provided by a number of members in the House. I look forward to it providing the necessary natural justice and protection for non-citizens while at the same time protecting our own citizens from the people who seek to do us harm. 
I also want to talk a little about the single Immigration and Protection Tribunal. 
Debate interrupted.