Wong Pansy: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8210] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 One can interpret those extraordinarily short calls only as an apology from the Labour members who know that this is an appalling piece of legislation. 
It is ironic that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs the Hon Chris Carter is speaking in the reporting-back stage of this legislation which was labelled by many submitters to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as discriminatory legislation that will have a racist impact. It will limit the number of migrants from non - English-speaking environments. This same Minister the Hon. Chris Carter has visited many ethnic community functions and has taken his interpreter to interpret his speech in Chinese Korean and Hindi. Last November his Government increased the level of English required and that together with this legislation will firmly close the door on migrants from those areas. In many of his speeches he has said they are exactly the type of migrants that his Government would welcome. I put on record that we want to hear a lot more from that Minister to reconcile his public statements and the type of legislation that his Government brings in. 
Ninety percent of the submitters who came before the select committee were against this legislation. It is clear to all the members on the select committee that this legislation was introduced as a result of a lack of leadership and competence by the Minister of Immigration and the officials of that department. This legislation brings in tools—namely the invitation to apply and the lapsing provisions—that will undermine transparency certainty and fairness. Without those principles the immigration system will be subject to even more corruption and discrimination. The Hon Peter Dunne the chairman of the select committee chose to misrepresent my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who made it clear that National believes that immigration policy has to be objective and transparent. We certainly believe in a policy that has upfront criteria and has accountability. 
But the select committee was told particularly by the Association for Migration and Investment that the large backlog that occurred last year at the application pool was not a result of the inflexibility of the current immigration policy but rather a result of an apparent lack of will to utilise the existing tool. We were told in February 2002 that the Immigration Service had used up the quota of approvals for immigration applications and that no new ones could be approved until July 2002. But the Minister of Immigration refused to increase the passing marks until very late that year. As a result a large backlog occurred. So the Minister of Immigration made the mistake and the potential migrants paid the price. She introduced under urgency legislation to lapse not 20000 people as pointed out by Peter Dunne but 20000 applications which means about 46000 people and my latest information suggests that the number could be a lot higher. The Minister went on to say that those people had been affected by the lapsing provisions because they were not able to contribute to New Zealand but those people’s applications had been accepted because her department the Immigration Service had specified those passing marks at that time. 
The Minister is very fond of quoting one particular email and in my hand I have quite a bundle of emails and letters from some of those people affected. I would like to share a couple with the public just to let people know we are dealing with human beings. One of them from a woman states: “I find myself again at a crossroads in a great country known for its greatness to immigrants of all nations. It is formulating laws where innocent people become targets. I wonder how much security I will get after working so hard. It has disturbed my mental and physical peace.” Another one from a male applicant states: “Sir/Madam: This bears reference to the change in immigration policy by the New Zealand Government. The decision by your immigration ministry is callous and shocking. It has brought crisis to not only my professional life but also my personal life.” Many of these people have put their lives on hold while they wait for their applications to be processed. 
Then the Minister of Immigration claimed that their application fees would be refunded as though the Labour Government were being generous. That was an outrage. No work was done on those applications so why should those fees not be refunded? But what about those people’s time? Some have waited for 2 years. The submission from the Auckland District Law Society had this to say on the lapsing provisions: “Decency and fair play have unfortunately given way to political expedience. Retrospective use”—[ 
Interruption 
]—the Labour member might think Auckland District Law Society members are rubbish but I beg to disagree—“of lapsing provisions and the enshrining of that in the current legislation amount to perhaps the most serious defeat of the rule of law let alone section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” 
The Labour members might not agree with the Auckland District Law Society but even their friend the Chief Human Rights Commissioner Ros Noonan in her submission pointed out: “They are informed that such a discretionary invitation scheme does not exist in comparative overseas jurisdictions.” The Auckland District Law Society is a lot more forthright and upfront in telling the select committee that the bill creates a framework for unfettered and unprincipled decision-making. It went on to say: “With the introduction of the lapsing provision as well as the invitation to apply there is no certainty left in the system. The immigration system cannot be trusted. This also sends a wider message to the rest of the world making us look unreliable.” It is making New Zealanders look unreliable. 
A lawyer Mr Glyn who practised law in South Africa had this to say and I think it is a sobering statement that Labour and United Future members should really listen to: “This bill infringes values regarded as fundamental in any democracy.” He went on to say: “Unfettered discretions and retrospective policy-forming power in this bill are reminiscent of powers found in much of South African legislation prior to the democratic election in 1994.” It is a sad day when this Parliament is debating the reporting back of legislation that was roundly condemned by about 90 percent of the submitters. Even in the very short and rushed time frame those people found it necessary to make very strong statements in front of the select committee. I point out that the Korean Society and many Asian community members made submissions to the select committee that backed up those concerns about the racist impact that this legislation will have.