Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6787] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: Focusing on Part 1 I think the Minister in whose name this bill stands made a very revealing statement before departing from the Chamber. She said that her first instruction to officials for the drafting of this bill was on 23 June. That is barely 6 days ago. If we take out the weekend we are talking about 4 working-days. So this bill has come back into Parliament under urgency. Obviously on Monday the Cabinet looked at it and decided to ram it through under urgency to deny it the scrutiny of a select committee and to have no consultation whatsoever with the industry—where the expertise lies. In fact we heard on  
Morning Report 
 this morning that upwards of 20000 people who have made applications could be affected by this legislation. 
Pansy Wong 
: Twenty thousand applications. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Twenty thousand applications. That is possibly 60000 or 72000 people. That involves 20000 applications but then the industry made the point that the Government does not really know. It was reckoned that that figure was the industry’s guesstimate and the industry’s guess has become the Government’s research in this matter. That is very worrying indeed. 
We have not had a satisfactory explanation from the Ministers in the chair or from any Government speaker of the reason for urgency. We have not heard that at all. We do know that Justice Randerson’s decision went against the Minister. The Government was taken to court and it lost. The Government was wrong and the court told it so. The Government then decided that it would appeal and then thought: “Oh no there is a short cut to that. We’ll change the law. We’ll use the brute force of the State—change the law deny people their rights trample over their rights.” In fact it smacks a bit of the foreshore and seabed situation when we think about it does it not? The Government will end up in a similar sort of pickle because it panicked in that situation. 
Such knee-jerk reactions on the part of the Government never work. We saw it with the booze tax that it slapped on us under urgency. I think it was in the last urgency period we had. Jim Anderton said that there was a crisis and that if the Government did not move straight away there would be all sorts of problems—and now everyone is laughing. That legislation is a nonsense and is actually counter-productive. I predict that this bill will also be counter-productive. 
I listened to the Minister’s explanation of clause 3 and I support that explanation. I think there is some rationale in the argument she put forward with regard to temporary entry. But as Dail Jones expressed in his speech I get very nervous when I see legislation that leads off with the expression “to avoid doubt”. Whenever we see “to avoid doubt” we know we are making muddied waters worse-confounded. It seems to be inevitable. When we have to say in legislation “to avoid doubt” trouble is on its way. 
But then turning to clause 4 which is the other part of this Part 1 I become really really worried. In her explanation the Minister used only about two sentences and explained this provision as part of a global prioritisation. The words just sort of flowed over and that was all she addressed. But when we actually read the words in the clause—and this is why I would have liked the bill to go to a select committee and be scrutinised—the point has been made that the provision is giving awesome discretionary powers to bureaucrats and is raising the fear of rorts and corruption. We have had cases and claims and allegations—substantiated allegations—of rorts and corruption in the processing of visas and associated with immigration. 
We see some very worrying text in that clause. Subsection (1) of section 13BA inserted by clause 4 states: “The order and manner of processing any application for a visa or permit is a matter for the discretion of a visa officer or immigration officer.” Subsection (2) states: “The chief executive may … give general instructions … as to the order and manner of processing any application for a visa or permit.” but the order is solely at the discretion of the immigration officer on the ground. So the various regions around the country or around the world where visas might be processed could have amazing inconsistencies and irregularities associated with them. Then in subsection (3) we see that “In giving any such general instructions the chief executive may have regard to such matters as the chief executive thinks fit.”