McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6818] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: The Minister would have us believe that this is a relatively minor bill that is being passed under urgency to facilitate a wider package of immigration changes that for some unknown reason were announced late yesterday afternoon. Significant changes are contained in the other bill which I make only passing reference to as I know the Standing Orders permit but the relationship between these two bills is important and there has been some dispute it is fair to say about that matter. 
The Government says it is moving away from a system that is based on points solely to one that will see New Zealand’s labour market needs met by way of immigration. That is a significant shift. It takes us back to a policy that we have seen before in this country which relies heavily on the ability of Ministers and officials to understand what is happening in the marketplace. I have grave concerns although I will approach that matter which is now before a select committee with an open mind. 
In relation to this measure I say that it has been completely misrepresented to the House by the Minister who has presented it. This bill has nothing to do with a meaningful reform of the immigration system in this country. It has everything to do with saving the political backside of a Minister and some officials who did not see some inevitable consequences who did not make some decisions that they should have made and who are finally now asking this Parliament under cover of urgency to tidy up what they know they can tidy up no other way. 
To recount the history of this matter—and it has been adverted to on more than one occasion in the Committee stage—this bill really has its origins in the fact that the Minister of Immigration and the Government that has been in place for 4 long years did nothing to confront significant changes in relation to the immigration market. They did nothing to fine-tune by way of the annual plan or any other measure the points system in a significant way or make any other significant adjustments that would have avoided some of the problems that have now occurred. Because the problem became large and because the number of applications was substantial and because the political heat came on to the Minister the Government decided to do something and it panicked. In a sheer act of panic we saw some changes made that touched the implementation of the English language test. 
Those changes were challenged by a group in the High Court of New Zealand. The High Court in the form of Justice Randerson found in a judgment issued on 16 May this year that the Minister had no lawful base for making some of the decisions she encouraged the Government to make. That was a pivotal time for the Minister. Dr Cullen made a fair point when he said that this Parliament should not surrender to the courts the ability to make policy decisions. So when faced with that decision by the High Court the Minister had an opportunity to come back to the Parliament and say: “Look this Act of Parliament which was promoted by the previous Government and supported by most major parties in this Government does not do what the legislature thought it was doing when it passed the bill. I am asking the political parties assembled here to give some thought to putting in place in black and white the law as we thought the law to be at the time.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And you would have agreed. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I would have given that very serious consideration. Quite frankly I accept Dr Cullen’s point. This Parliament should not surrender to the courts the ability effectively to make the law. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You don’t even know what the decision says. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have read the decision. I have it right here. The Minister should know that my reading of the decision was completely different from hers. I never thought that she had a hope in hell of getting the Court of Appeal to turn over that judgment. I never thought for a minute that she would succeed in the Court of Appeal so it was with some surprise that I saw the press release dated 17 June in which the Minister of Immigration said that she was off to the Court of Appeal. Having had the judgment of Justice Randerson from 16 May to 17 June the Minister did not approach the Opposition parties to say: “Hey let’s make the law do what we all thought the law was going to do when we passed it.” No she said that the High Court was wrong that she was off to the Court of Appeal and here is the press release dated 17 June. I thought that the Minister was wrong then. The Minister now thinks the Minister was wrong. Barely 2 weeks later the Minister is in this Parliament promoting a bill through all its stages under urgency asking us to do what the High Court would not do on 16 May and what she now knows the Court of Appeal would not do after she had taken the appeal that she said on 17 June she was going to take to the Court of Appeal. 
I want the Minister to answer a question that I have asked numerous times and that she should have answered. What did she think was happening in relation to this bill when she put out that press release and gave media briefings on 17 June? To any reasonable observer that press release and the media comments she provided would suggest that the Government was fully confident that the law stated what the Minister thought it stated and she was very happy to go down the appeal process. I find it difficult to accept that on 17 June the Minister had not turned her mind to the very real probability that she would have this No. 2 bill come to the House and go through all stages and that she had not turned her mind to the possibility that this bill might contain the provisions that effectively override Justice Randerson’s decision. If the Minister did have those matters in her mind anybody who believed what she said in that press release or in her media briefing would be entitled to feel totally misled. 
I simply say that this bill is all about saving the Minister’s backside. In the course of doing so it is prejudicing the interests of a large number of people who will now feel that they have been dealt with dishonourably by the New Zealand Government. The issue is not whether they are all people who should have residence in New Zealand the question is whether those people who are entitled to deal with the New Zealand Government and make such an application can expect to be dealt with in a reasonable predictable and fair manner. I am concerned that the more widespread signal sent by the way in which the Government has dealt with this legislation is that the best migrants in the world who have a full menu of choices available will say that New Zealand is just too hard and too complicated and that one might apply on one basis and be dealt with under some completely different basis. 
In conclusion I am pleased that those matters have moved not just the National Party but the ACT party the New Zealand First Party and the Greens in a united way. They have kicked the tyres on the detail of the bill asked the questions and having found the Minister’s explanations thoroughly unconvincing I hope that they will all decide to oppose it at this third reading stage. I also have to say that the United Future party which seems happy to do any old deal any old day to keep the Government happy promised fairness in its policy and preached the need for consistency in dealing with those matters. United Future members should now hang their heads in shame because they have participated in a truly shabby exercise in this Parliament. This bill deserves to be tested by the Parliament properly on the way through. I thank all the Opposition parties for the way in which they have gone about that process.