Heatley Phil: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8290] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party’s views on Part 2 have been reasonably widely canvassed but I do not believe that the Government has heard enough constructive argument from speakers apart from those of National about issues to do with corruption. That subject is highlighted in clause 6 which deals with the issue of the invitation to apply for residence. That is a matter of discretion—but for whom? That matter can be decided by the Minister by a visa officer by the anointing of the Minister or by an immigration officer by the anointing of the Minister. That discretionary power is of concern to us. National believes there is a need to get a better match of the skills of skilled residence applicants to suit the skill requirements of the New Zealand economy. There is no doubt about that but we think it can be done in a more transparent manner. 
I am not arguing that this particular Minister is open to corruption. She seems to me like a reasonable Minister from time to time but she is setting herself up and setting up all her colleagues—those future Ministers who will follow in her footsteps over the next few months if her resignation comes about—for suspicion in terms of corruption. A number of submitters pointed out that matter to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it is a shame the Minister was not more in tune with those concerns. Submitters had concerns about the way in which that discretion would be applied in the issuing of invitations to apply for residency under clause 6. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not casting those sorts of aspersions on the Minister. I am not suggesting that she would succumb to a packet of money—not at all. My concern for the Minister is that she not only do the right thing but is seen to do the right thing and further that the law provides she could only ever do the right thing. 
Section 10A(2) inserted by clause 6 states: “The question whether or not to issue such an invitation or to revoke such an invitation once issued is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or subject to any special direction given under this Act the appropriate visa officer or immigration officer.” Upon that discretionary decision no appeal against the decision of the Minister the visa officer or the immigration officer is allowed even if the decision is questionable. Even if all of them took questionable action there is no appeal. Further subsection (4) states: “No review proceedings may be brought in respect of any refusal or failure of the Minister or a visa officer or an immigration officer …”. Even if the Minister or the Minister’s officers are suspected of underhand behaviour or of being open to corruption in a particular decision their decisions will not face an appeal and none of them will face review proceedings. 
I ask this Minister whether she really thinks that she herself those who follow her and those who work under her so diligently are so beyond reproach that they should not face appeal or review proceedings. That is of concern to me and I would like the Minister to respond to that. She should not harp back to the fact that those points are already in the Act but she should address my concern and say regardless of whether to a greater or lesser degree the points are already in law how she will address the issue of suspicion of corruption. That is my concern. I put it before the Committee and particularly before the Chair as she considers the bill.