Hughes Darren: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10111] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a reasonably brief call during the Committee stage of this Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I am motivated to do so because I had hoped that the Maori Party might take a call during the Committee stage. The member for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene spoke very eloquently during the first reading of the bill and I thought we might hear from the member for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira during the Committee stage. Clause 1 in the clause by clause analysis refers to the change in the title clause taking place to ensure that that clause explicitly refers to the Act in which the enactment originally occurred—in other words it will enable the bill to do what Parliament thought it had done in the first place. I thought that the member for Te Tai Tokerau might have had a view on making sure that laws did exactly what he thought they would do at the time they were passed by Parliament— 
Hone Harawira 
: Steal Maori land. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —in respect of the foreshore and seabed legislation or the provisions that were going to be referred to in the news today. The member refers to stealing land by way of interjection yet I do not think that the legislation that will come to the House will explicitly refer to the remedy he seeks. So I will be very interested to hear from him and I would like him to make a contribution to the Committee of the whole House about how legislation can explicitly refer as the clause by clause analysis says to clause 1 in respect of that. He had quite a lot to say on the television news tonight and I am hoping he will share with the Committee of the whole House his views on that. 
That point I am making goes to the heart of the mistakes that are made in legislation. The member opposite thinks that major mistakes were made; he is looking for remedies. This bill is a remedy for a particular mistake that the self-described maestro of New Zealand politics the Hon Jonathan Coleman managed to bring through with this bill. But tonight is a night for congratulating Mr Coleman. He has a new child; we are all very happy for him in that respect and we wish him well and that is why we are happy that the bill has been handed over to the Attorney-General. It is a good night for Jonathan Coleman. 
But that analysis of clause 1 refers to that so I hope that once I have finished my remarks Hone Harawira will speak to us about that. There will be a lot of people waiting to hear what he has to say about it I am sure. I am certainly one. 
Hone Harawira 
: Ha ha! Guaranteed. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That is good. If he had said no I would have pointed out that this is one of those fortnightly Wednesdays that is pay day and he should get to his feet and explain what his views are on that. It seemed to me that there was a slightly different position tonight between that proposed by Government MP Hone Harawira who is member of the National-Maori-ACT Government and what the Ministers were proposing in respect of that law. 
I have a question for the Attorney-General who is standing in tonight for the Minister of Immigration and it goes to that correction to section 474. The aide-mémoire refers to the certification of immigration consultants under section 22(1) and that they can thereby be classified under section 23(1) and I wonder whether the Minister can explain to us exactly—well not exactly; that is unfair on him— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no—exactly. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No he is prescient but even this close to Easter the Minister is not quite prescient in that respect; by Sunday of course he will have the answer to everything. But I ask whether he could explain to us exactly what instructions will be classified differently as a result of this reference because the bill itself does not make that clear. Even the aide-mémoire although it refers to what will happen mechanically does not go through the issues of substance in terms of the legislation. 
My second question to the Hon Christopher Finlayson is about the appointment of tribunal members which I understand was the subject of the mistake made between versions 22 and 23 as referred to by Mr Cosgrove. A mistake was picked up there and it referred to the tribunal members. I wonder whether the Minister could tell the Committee just for our own interest to what extent work has been done to begin to appoint those tribunal members. Was the mistake discovered because tribunal members were about to be appointed? 
In other words has it been decided who the tribunal members will be or has it pretty much been decided who they will be? How far down the road has that process through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee travelled? We certainly do not need to know names; we are not on a fishing expedition for that. We are almost certain that an appointment could be part of the severance package for the Rt Hon James Brendan Bolger but we are not sure about that. I certainly hope the severance package is much more generous than that because he has worked hard for our country and deserves it. But now that the Minister has told us how much work has gone on with regard to those appointments I would like to know if we passed this law tonight and we specifically did not give a commencement date this time when they would be made. Jonathan Coleman made us give a date last time and he was wrong about that so we are correcting it tonight. We are very happy to do that; there is support from the Labour Opposition in that regard. But when can we expect tribunal members to be appointed under this particular provision? 
Those are the two questions I have. In addition I am waiting for Hone Harawira’s contribution which I am anticipating will take place now.