te Heuheu Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6799] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: Part 2 is symptomatic of a Government that when it makes a major muck-up sees its role as bringing down the swift axe of Parliament. It uses Parliament to ride roughshod over people’s rights to ride roughshod over people who have entered a process in good faith. My colleague Paul Hutchison made reference to clause 5 which makes right any decisions that the bureaucrats have made up to this point—whether or not they were right—and makes valid any mistakes that have been made. That sort of management of a portfolio and that sort of policy are to be absolutely rejected in this Parliament. 
I shall focus on clause 6 which deals with the lapsing of certain applications made before 20 November 2002. Lapsing the applications of people who came into the process in good faith is no way to manage an immigration policy and is no way to manage that portfolio. Again that sort of draconian action is symptomatic of a Government that when it comes to the crunch when it has to try to make up for its muck-ups acts in this arbitrary manner. 
I would like the Minister of Immigration to explain part of clause 6 for my benefit and hopefully for the benefit of others both inside and outside this House. It provides that applications for residence visas or permits that were made before 20 November 2002 and that have not been decided as at the date of the commencement of this legislation which will come into play today tomorrow or certainly within the next 2 or 3 days are deemed to lapse unless the applicants satisfy one of the four categories listed—if they wish to stay in the process. One is that the applicant “had claimed points for an offer of employment classed as ‘relevant’ under the Government residence policy applying to that application;”. What is the meaning of the word “relevant” in this context? I would appreciate the Minister taking a call to give us some detail around that. For an officer administering the policy the word “relevant” can be taken to mean anything that the officer wants it to mean. That is not acceptable in this sort of area. I would like an explanation because clause 6 does not define what “relevant” means in this area. 
There is the issue of applicants who had claimed 28 or more points under the Government residence policy applying for the application. That points system of course is a huge issue in itself. Some applicants may have thought just before the commencement of this bill: “I’m OK. I’m in.” but there is now a change in the points system. The limit goes up from 27 to 28 points so they are out in the cold. 
I turn to paragraph (iv) of clause (6)(1)(a) which deals with applicants who “had been invited in writing by a visa officer or an immigration officer to apply for a work visa …”. I would like an explanation of that provision. Has it been the policy for some time that visa officers can give invitations as this suggests or is it something new? Was it actually invented yesterday which means these applicants will be cut out any way? Nobody will be able to satisfy that condition. 
In terms of lapsing applications particularly in the context of the way that this Minister has brought this bill into the House and is rushing it through under urgency those provisions require explanation.