Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6741] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was a very interesting speech—I thought so when the member made the same speech on the other bill before teatime and I still think so but it was on the wrong bill. I tell Mr Adams that the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) is not going to a select committee; it will be rammed through all its stages tonight with United Future’s help. Here we are in the dead of night with no forewarning at all—no notice whatsoever—with the Government ramming retrospective legislation through this House without any recourse whatsoever to a select committee or to the public of this country. Mr Adams and—[ 
Interruption 
] What are they called? United Future members? I thought they were called lapdogs but let us not mind that. The United Future party will back this bill. 
Did anybody see the  
Holmes 
 show tonight? What a joke it was. There was bluster bluff and blarney with everybody trying to talk over everybody else and Mr Milnes said we have had 15 months of mess. Those are not my words or the words of New Zealand First but the words of an immigration expert. Then came the big you-know-what—then came the big porky. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Porky isn’t here. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am talking about another porky not the member. The reality is this— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The word “porky” has been ruled out of order by Mr Speaker. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: OK. Then came another you-know-what meaning that what was said was at variance with the truth. The interviewer asked the Minister whether she was bringing in this bill because she had lost a court case and do members know what the Minister said? On national television she said no when everybody here in this House knows that this bill is here because she lost the court case. She said in mid-June that she would go to a higher court and appeal the decision. Then of course somebody with decent qualifications came along and told the Minister her understanding of the law was slightly wrong and she would waste the taxpayers’ money if she went to the Court of Appeal or the Privy Council. The Minister was told that she would lose all the way. That is why we have this retrospective bill—and this comes from the party that went around saying New Zealand First was a terrible party because it was saying awful things about immigrants. 
I will tell the Government what New Zealand First would not do: we would not go and take away people’s legal rights—that is the first thing we would not do—unlike the embarrassed Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell her that there is no use in getting nervous with that high-pitched laugh. It states in the explanatory note of the bill that clause 5 “ensures that past prioritisation of the processing of applications for visas and permits cannot be challenged in the courts.”—she hopes! The Minister has no idea but she hopes that it cannot be challenged in the courts. How many Ministers of Immigration have been along to the High Court in such a spectacular way? Then she became vindictive and retrospectively moved against not one but 20000 people of whom she had said she was the great defender. And 20000 is a stab in the dark as well. Now she has the classic provision whereby she will have decisions made by her discretion or by that of an appropriately delegated immigration or visa officer. If ever I saw an invitation for corruption to occur that is it. 
Do members know what clause 3 of the bill states? Members will love that clause. It states that in no circumstances does a decision on the issue or grant of a temporary or a limited purpose visa or permit constitute a decision under Government residence policy. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That is right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what she says. I ask the Minister why if this is the way it should be she did not tell us 2 years ago that we would have 45000 people coming here—and 2 months ago it was 72800. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was not 72800. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it was and there is no use in getting hysterical about that because the figures are all out there from the Department of Statistics. They were gleaned by a professor from Waikato University and no one has disputed them before. 
My real question is to the Maori members—those tigers on the marae. 
Pansy Wong 
: Where? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is a good question. They are always talking tino rangatiratanga and say the party listens to the Maori caucus. They have a Minister and a party that is bringing in more people from Asia than the Maori population in the next 10 years alone. The Government will bring in more Asians than the Maori population which has been here for 1000 years in just 10 years and those Maori members over there on the Government benches will back that. So I ask them please not to talk to me about tino rangatiratanga and the foreshore and land rights when they know full well that if they go to Cockle Bay today they will not get one cockle whatsoever. 
Dail Jones 
: What do they call the beach? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Do members know what it is called now? It used to be called Cockle Beach but is now called “China Beach”. At one time we could all go down to get a feed of cockles at any time but now we cannot get one. 
Meanwhile what is Mr Tamihere—who by his own definition is a giant in the Maori world—doing about the situation? He says: “Yes Helen yes Helen three bags full.” or “How high do you want me to jump?” and then he goes public in the newspapers and writes an article. But when the heat goes on we do not have a warrior; we have a worrier. Mr Tamihere is really powerful on the marae but when he gets inside the Cabinet room and Helen has a word to him he begins to understand what people say about those men who hide behind the skirts of women. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Are you jealous? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. I do not think that someone who is prepared to see the Maori population superseded by immigrants not once but twice within 20 years is doing anything for Maoridom for this country for Auckland or for our hospitals our schools our jobs or our welfare system. 
The Minister in charge of social services and employment was asked how many immigrants are on the sickness benefit the unemployment benefit the student allowance and the subsidised work schemes. Other Ministers were asked how many immigrants are accessing our education services health services accident compensation and State housing and at what cost. Do members know what the Ministers said? They said they could not tell me because they do not keep those figures. Yet they keep on going around the country saying that immigration is good for New Zealand. That is as shallow and superficial as it ever gets. Those Ministers have no idea why immigration is good but apparently it is like Epsom salts—if a person takes it that will somehow be good for him or her. It tastes like crap but we are told it will be good for us. That is the problem. 
Steve Chadwick 
: That’s a bit old-fashioned. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I want to ask “Stevie Nicks” from Rotorua this simple question: how many people in Rotorua support this policy? There is not a word a syllable a mutter or a sound now. 
Do members know what happened? The party over there in Government—the “finger in the wind” party—that does everything on the basis of the polls and the views of its focus groups found out in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that its contention that immigration was good for New Zealanders and was supported by them was wrong. The  
Sunday Star-Times  
pointed out that less than 16 percent of New Zealanders supports the Government’s policy. That is panic station - time for that party. Those members know full well that in the last pre-election campaign we promised three things and we will fix them up. First of all we will fix the Minister. We will make sure that on this policy we fix her good and proper. We will fix her mind so that she understands what is going on. I hear those Labour members over there on the Government side of the House cheering—members like the senior Government whip. How did he get that job? It must have been in a raffle because it cannot be on the basis of talent leadership ability or respect as some sort of leader in the caucus. 
One of the reasons that Labour will lose the 2005 election—or whenever it flies the white flag—is that it has a totally stupid fatalist immigration policy. That is a fact. There are other reasons as well. But Labour will lose when the crunch goes on as it did in the last campaign and Labour went down 14 percent in 4 weeks flat. If the New Zealand media got off its backside and was halfway towards being impartial Labour would go down by twice that figure because the media knows the Labour Party’s support is as soft as hell on this issue. I warn Labour to draw back now before it is too late.