Clark David: Immigration Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Immigration Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I confess that I was looking to hear what Darien Fenton was going to say. She was on the cusp of really kind of getting to the grips of what the mass arrival issue was. That is something that has been troubling me just how it will be defined. I hope she has another opportunity in the debate to further expound on it because this is an important debate.I made the point in Part 1 so I will not labour it now that this Immigration Amendment Bill is attempting to distract from the scandals in the Government. I guess I want to carry that on in so far as in Part 2 we actually have the practical application of that. We have the consequential amendments in Part 2 which give effect to things through other legislation. If we imagined for a minute that some of those things were different in Part 2 we would get to a different outcome. We would actually get a bit more chaos if the consequential amendments were not followed through. Arguably that would actually be a better outcome than having a consequential amendment that reflected the legislation because this is such a poor piece of legislation—it is such a poor piece of legislation.We see for example that the amendment to section 116 states: “in the case of a person detained under a mass arrival warrant … section 317B”. If that number waswrong then this legislation would not be able to be enacted in the same way. I am interested in whether the Minister of Immigration will get to his feet to suggest otherwise because these amendments in here—for example in section 117 to replace the word “earlier” with “earliest”—put a different emphasis in the legislation. This is all designed to ensure that this legislation is effective when it is put in place. We in the Labour Party think this is a bad piece of legislation. It seems that the actual best outcome would be for Part 2 to be ineffectual because that would lead to a fairer and better outcome.There are plenty of opportunities. My colleague Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Paper 244 would see people referred to a refugee centre—the current arrangement that is in place—and a much more humane way of dealing with the issue rather than the hysteria being cranked up by this Minister following others in his caucus in order to distract from the real issues in the country.This is a Government that is propped up by support parties that are troubled—one that is in court at the moment one that is being stepped back from a ministerial post and another party that is squabbling amongst itself about who is leader. We have a mess in the Government—and of course there was Aaron Gilmore who has just gone. This is a Government that is struggling so we see it prioritising legislation that is actually not good for New Zealand. [Interruption ] Government members across there do not like it. You can hear them interjecting because they know it is true. I would be embarrassed too. If you look across there you will see some red faces on some of those backbenchers. They are embarrassed about this legislation. They are embarrassed about Part 2. They know what will happen when Part 2 gets enacted. They know that they sign their names to this kind of legislation—this kind of knee-jerk response—that is actually not good for our country and is not good for our reputation as a humane and hospitable place where refugees are treated with respect and integrated into the culture. To those people across the Chamber there I tell them that this is a bit of a day of shame. This is John Key’s attempt to channel John Howard with a bill that politicises the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. It is divisive it is destructive and it does nothing to address the real issue.We have got to ask ourselves what has changed. What has changed? In 2011 John Key said that New Zealand was ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers—ready should one make it to our waters—and he knew that was never going to happen. What has changed since 2011 apart from John Key’s plummeting popularity? That is why Government members are exercised over there. They know that John Key is becoming unpopular because this kind of knee-jerk reaction—this kind of knee-jerk legislation—is the only thing that is going through the House. There is actually not anything that is qualitatively changing things. We know this Government has got the worst economic record in 50 years and there is no legislation being progressed to address that very important issue. Government members know it is true—across the Chamber they know it is true—and that is why they are exercised. That is why they are embarrassed about this legislation.John Key said: “Look we’ve upgraded our operating manual. We can deal with this immigration issue. We’re confident we understand our legal position.” Well something has changed since—something has changed since—and it is the popularity of the Government. That is why this legislation is being pushed through—to try to distract from the real issues.