Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8202] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 The Minister Hon Chris Carter who just made that speech to the House would have done credit to the Iraqi Minister for Information because he just told this Parliament that there were many submissions in favour of this bill that the Government seeks to read for a second time today. If one in 10 is many then I guess it is the truth. I suspect that only the Iraqi Minister for Information would consider that sort of thing to be the truth apart from maybe the Labour members of the New Zealand Parliament. 
After hearing the 15 submissioners who sought to be heard the National Party members on the select committee had this to say about this bill—and I will quote it because it is quite important—“The National Party has concerns that this legislation could be applied in such a way as to compromise some fundamental human rights principles. Its lack of transparency in procedure could lead to corruption. While it is recognised that there is a need to better match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy National members believe that this can be done in a more transparent manner that does not compromise New Zealand’s international reputation.” 
National’s minority report was a very measured response to some of the submissions from very important organisations that we heard from at the select committee. When we get groups such as the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties saying that this legislation worries them because it could lead to corruption and when the Auckland District Law Society says exactly the same thing—that it is concerned that this legislation could lead to corruption—I think members of this House should take some notice. 
This bill gives the Minister of Immigration absolute power to choose who can be invited to apply for residence in our country. That is a huge power to give to a Minister. The Minister can extend that power to officials within the Department of Immigration. They are the very same officials who are being investigated for the possibility of lying in unison. They are the same officials in the same department who it was revealed in this Parliament talked in a memo of “lying in unison”. 
This legislation gives those people plus the Minister extraordinary power. We heard at the select committee that no other country in the world is implementing a scheme like that which gives such unfettered power to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister’s senior officials. Some members may say that the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties does not matter much. Some Labour members may argue that the council’s concern that this legislation could lead to corruption is not a concern. I thought it might have concerned United Future—but still! 
The Auckland District Law Society though is a different kettle of fish. The Auckland District Law Society has not only said that this legislation could lead to corruption but also it told the select committee that this legislation could damage the image of New Zealand. It is its view that this legislation could damage New Zealand’s image because it could show New Zealand and its Government in a light that some could interpret as tending to be racist. It was not just the Auckland District Law Society saying that it would lead to corruption that it could damage the image of New Zealand. The society said that it was ashamed that this kind of legislation was in front of its Parliament. That is pretty powerful stuff coming from a law society. That is how deeply it felt that this legislation offended concepts of fairness of natural justice of transparency in Government decision-making. The law society felt that it so offended those principles that it was ashamed it was before the Parliament. 
Some might say the Auckland District Law Society does not amount to much. Maybe that is the way Labour views the law society. But the Human Rights Commission appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on 5 August of this year. I have detailed notes of what it had to say to us. The Human Rights Commission was concerned about the human rights implications of this legislation. It told us it was concerned about natural justice issues in respect of this legislation. It was concerned that the lack of transparency in decision making that this legislation provided for could lead to unfair use of discretion. 
Right up to the end on 14 August—the last day the select committee considered this legislation which is only a few days ago—committee members were worried about this; and not just Opposition members. There was debate going on on 14 August according to my notes. There was concern being discussed at the committee that this legislation could be used in a racist manner. It is quite clear that that is possible. 
I have to say that if the previous National-led Government had dared to bring to this Parliament had been unwise enough to bring to this Parliament legislation that could be used in a racist manner—where the law society where the Human Rights Commission expressed such concern about the issues of fairness and justice—that bunch over there those Labour members would have howled us out of this Parliament. Today they seek to read for the second time this bill that could be used in such an unfair and discriminatory manner. 
The bill gives the Minister the absolute power to choose who can apply for residence—not absolute power to decide who is granted residence but absolute power to choose who may apply for residence. Indeed it is interesting to observe that recent legislation lapsed the applications of thousands and thousands of Indian applicants. These thousands were largely applicants from India. They speak English; they had high education. One is led to a conclusion—in asking the question as to why those applications were lapsed by this Government—it smacks of racism. 
But it is not only the absolute power to the Minister to choose who can apply but also the fact that no one can appeal if the Minister chooses not to invite that person to apply. The Minister does not have to give any explanation—nothing!—in making her decision that that person is going to be invited to apply but some other person is not. Given the recent track record of the Minister and the Ministry of Immigration this legislation is too dangerous because it will tarnish New Zealand’s reputation. Inevitably issues of discrimination will arise. Inevitably where one has a system so lacking in transparency there will be challenges of discrimination of unfairness and discrimination based on race. Our Parliament our country should not be passing legislation that could so tarnish this country’s fine reputation.