McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8407] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The Minister of Immigration who has just resumed her seat spent most of her third reading speech dwelling on the provisions of clause 15A which amends section 60(2) of the principal Act. She seemed to be in something of a blue funk about the fact that I had made some unflattering references to her in the Committee stage of the bill but she does not seem to have listened very carefully to what was said and I will repeat some of those things today given this the third reading debate. Hopefully she will learn a lesson from it. 
Like other members National Party members did support the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that was outside the scope of the original bill. I do not dispute the outline of facts as provided by the Minister nor indeed do I disagree with her chiding certain members of the legal profession for the role they have played in this regard. What I do say to the Minister is that if she is going to accuse people of playing politics in these matters she needs to look in a mirror because the Supplementary Order Paper that we were told was so urgent was given to members of the National Party on the morning of the day on which the Government intended to introduce it to the House. It was given to Mr Peters of New Zealand First on the morning of its introduction and I understand that it was given to the ACT party and to Mr Prebble on the morning of its introduction yet I have been told that it was given to United Future—the Government’s very reliable lackey—some weeks in advance. The message I want to give to this Minister and to other Ministers is that on important matters of national security on important matters that attend our national interest Ministers can get cooperation by asking early and asking honestly for the cooperation of members on this side of the House. But they will not get fulsome cooperation they will not receive the support they might otherwise get if they treat parties differently. 
The matter at the heart of clause 15A is an important matter. I absolutely agree with the Minister about it and say with all sincerity that we could have dealt with it earlier. It was more than 3 weeks since the time of Justice Chambers’ decision when this matter came to the House and I say to the Minister as I said in the Committee stage that she must have been told by her counsel that they were going to lose that court case. It was a lay down misère . Anybody who looked at Justice Chambers’ decision could see that it was correct and could see that Parliament might have left an unintentional loophole when it dealt with the matter on an earlier occasion. So it was only correct that we should deal with that matter with due expedition. 
I say to the Minister again that it could have been dealt with earlier. The cooperation that she sought would have been forthcoming from this quarter and I am sure that it would have been forthcoming from other quarters—as it finally was. But I take exception to being treated differently from the United Future party and presumably from the Greens on a matter such as this. If it is a matter of national interest and if the Minister wants us to put politics to one side then she must deal with all parties even-handedly and equally. She failed to do that. If she expects to be treated with any charity in the House in future on these matters then she had better rethink the way in which she approaches them. If these matters are important enough to require members to put politics aside then first the Minister must put politics aside in making an approach to members of other political parties to seek their cooperation. I will have no sleepless nights from her taking offence at some of my less charitable comments about her stewardship of this particular Supplementary Order Paper but I promise her that she will have some very sleepless nights in future if that is the way she goes about dealing with matters that are so important to our national interest. 
It is also worthy of note that this matter which was considered so important that we were required to put aside party politics was being dealt with while concurrently in this House this Minister was trying to use the procedures of the House to avoid giving straight and honest answers to questions that by any measurement are important questions. I have never seen in my time in this House a memorandum with an assertion by an official that there was an agreement to “lie in unison”. The Minister herself has said that if it were the case that there was a conspiracy then she must have been a part of it—part of an agreement to lie in unison. So the Minister asks us to put to one side— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill which has nothing to do with the matter that the member is now addressing. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Speaking to the point of order I want to say that the Minister spent a good part of her speech talking about the response from Opposition members to her request for cooperation in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 131 which was outside the scope of the original bill. It is perfectly in order for me to relate to the House the circumstances and wider environment in which that request was received and dealt with. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members. I was getting a little concerned about the width of the speech and that is why I tried visually to bring the member back to the bill. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Minister asks too much of members of this House if she on the one hand is going to approach members of other parties say that this matter is so important that she wants to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the original bill and ask for their cooperation in doing so yet on the other hand on a matter that causes very great trouble to members of this House is dealing with members on a less than even-handed and open basis. I say to the Minister again that if she wants cooperation on such matters then she has to revise the way in which she deals with her responses to questions on matters of considerable legitimate public interest. 
In relation to this bill I want to refer in particular— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I didn’t have to let you know anything. It was a matter of courtesy that I let you know. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: If the Minister wants cooperation she has to consult members. If she wants members to take a non-partisan approach to a matter of considerable national interest then she has to revise the way she does business. She went— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Well I won’t do that with the National Party again. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Minister can choose whatever method she wants but when she has made her bed she has to lie on it and I tell her she should reflect on that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What you said on the phone wasn’t what you said in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr McCully has the floor. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: If the Minister would reflect on the fact that she did not tell me she had approached other political parties some weeks in advance then she might put a different complexion on this matter. 
I want to refer in particular to clause 5 which deals with the powers of the Minister and the powers of Immigration Service officers. Section 10(3) in clause 5 states that there is to be no recourse to review proceedings in the court in relation to decisions about visas or in relation to decisions of the Residence Review Board. In clause 6 we find a new section 10A to be inserted in the principal Act that has wide-ranging powers for the Minister and immigration officers that make it clear there is to be no review of the decisions of the Minister or officers of the Immigration Service in relation to invitations to apply for visas or to any of the other provisions of this Act. 
 I say to the Minister that with these extensive powers and protections being granted to the Minister and to her officials members of the public will be looking to be reassured that the Minister and those officials will use those powers and the protections that go with those powers in a way that is in the public interest and in a way that is professional and beyond reproach. When they see that there are memos floating around the most senior offices of the Immigration Service asserting that there is an agreement to “lie in unison” they will look at section 10(3) in clause 5 and subsections (1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) of section 10A in clause 6 and will ask members of Parliament whether we are sure that this Minister and these officials should receive these powers and these protections from review by the courts of this land. Those are questions that remain unanswered in this House today as they have been through the earlier stages of the bill.