Moroney Sue: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9405. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you to David Bennett who has just said that this will be a bleeding heart. Well I am internalising a complicated situation because what we have got here is a situation where we have been convinced or at least the media has been used to try to convince New Zealanders that there is a very real and imminent threat of boat people arriving on our shores and invading our country—and not only invading our country. The little dog whistle from the National Government to New Zealanders is that they will threaten our standard of living somehow and must therefore be dealt with.But when the boat that was supposedly on its way to New Zealand some time around the Christmas holiday period did not materialise and questions were asked of the then Minister of Immigration to give some evidence to that situation that had been drummed up through the media there was none. There was no evidence that could be offered by that Government that there was indeed a ship full of refugees on its way to New Zealand shores.John Key you know we cannot legislate for your ghost ships. We on this side of the House are not going to legislate for your ghost ships. That is in fact what the National Government is asking us to do. It is using this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill as it uses many other bills as a weapon of mass distraction. That is what it is in fact trying to do here. It is trying to distract from the many many problems that that Government faces today.Just look at today for example. I can imagine that when those bombs went off in Boston it was then that the National Government decided it would be a good day to announce that it has appointed one of its own MPs to a watchdog role as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. I think—Simon O’Connor: That’s disgraceful.SUE MORONEY: Well have a look at your Government’s record—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are including the Speaker in that by the use of your pronouns. You are also straying away from second reading material.SUE MORONEY: I just ask members opposite to look at their Government’s record when it comes to using legislation through this House and other matters as distraction from issues that are in fact going on. I think they would also be quite pleased that the second reading of this bill comes up on a day when they have appointed another one of their supporters to the Human Rights Commission. They are starting to use that commission as if it is a recruitment agency for National Party supporters.The Human Rights Commission is concerned about the very bill in front of the House this evening. That is why it is so important that we have people who are not under the influence of the National Party or any particular party in these watchdog roles within the Human Rights Commission. Bills like this which do contravene human rights understandings and conventions and legislation need good strong watchdogs in place to be able to come out against the Government when it does these things. That is why the way in which that Government is using the Human Rights Commission is just so wrong.But I want to come back more explicitly to the details of this particular bill because we had the member for Hamilton East David Bennett speak before and it was very very disappointing. He comes from a city—well he does not come from that city but he is now in the city—where there are actually a large number of refugees and there are—David Bennett: Where did you vote last election Sue? It wasn’t Hamilton West was it?SUE MORONEY: Well the member asked where I voted at the last election. I voted in Hamilton West if he must know.David Bennett: Rubbish! Prove it.SUE MORONEY: Well I can prove it if that is what he wants the House’s time taken up with but of course I voted in the electorate of Hamilton West at the last election. I am not sure what the point is that he is trying to make. But look the point that I am trying to make is that Hamilton actually is a city with a large number of refugees. In fact it has such a good reputation in terms of refugee resettlement that the Afghan translators whom Labour fought that Government to bring to New Zealand—and we actually won on that occasion—are being resettled in Hamilton. I am really proud to say that in that city and it took me a little while to work this out we have one of the best processes. It can always get better so it is by no means perfect. But we have a migrant resource centre where a whole lot of services that cater for migrants and refugees are co-located in one area. It makes a real difference in terms of the ability of those organisations to resettle refugees and migrants in a fashion that makes them quite included and welcomed into the community. I think one of the most touching things that happens on a regular basis in Hamilton is the pōwhiri that happens when new refugee families are welcomed into our community. It really is a very embracing situation.But contrast that—contrast what is happening in Hamilton and the welcome and the pōwhiri that those refugees are given—with this piece of legislation. This dog whistling piece of legislation is actually all based on something that has never happened. There has never been even a threat of it happening but it uses that ghost scenario to try to do a dog whistle to the rest of the New Zealand population. That I think is really an outrageous thing to do. It is outrageous because it undermines and puts other New Zealanders in a really bad context because that Government actually thinks that New Zealanders are silly enough to respond to this in the way that it hopes that they will. What it hopes they will do is start to blame other people for the sorts of things that that Government is doing like not getting on top of the recession and all the things that are creating problems for New Zealanders today.If David Bennett really believed that this bill was something that was in the interest of all refugees—certainly he tried to invoke the idea of queue-jumping and that this bill was designed to stop queue-jumping—then why is it that the Refugee Council of New Zealand which represents all of those people he thought he was talking in favour of has written to the Minister to express its grave concern about this bill? It called it a sledgehammer approach to the issue. It said that as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees New Zealand has an international legal obligation not to discriminate against asylum seekers based on their mode of arrival. The council warned the Minister that the bill was unnecessary that it would not achieve its stated purpose and that it would breach human rights obligations. But more frightening it actually jeopardises New Zealand’s international reputation as a world leader in this area and it hinders progress towards a genuine regional solution. I think that is the most insidious thing about this bill. Yes it is a dog whistle to hard-working New Zealanders but it actually risks the international reputation.It was interesting to watch the members opposite as they squirmed while they listened to Winston Peters’ speech but what he was doing was speaking out loud what the National Party really believes when it comes to the issue of refugees. National members need to stand up and be accountable to the dog whistle politics that this bill is and stop using these pieces of legislation to try to distract the New Zealand public from their woeful performance in Government.