Volume 611 Week 35 - Tuesday 2 September 2003 
Volume 611 Week 35 - Tuesday 2 September 2003 
[Volume:611;Page:8233] 
Tuesday 2 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she seen the 17 July 2002 memo from Ruth Wilkie to Dr Mark Prebble regarding his decision to withhold from public release notes to the Prime Minister on the management of potentially contaminated corn seed and in which Ms Wilkie states that “Mary Anne Thompson reported to you and me that the PM was prepared to have these notes released if necessary”; if so did she have a meeting or discussion which would have led Mary Anne Thompson to make such a report? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I have seen the memo. Dr Thompson has confirmed that no such meeting or discussion with me took place. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Heather Simpson or chief press secretary Mike Munro have any knowledge of which papers were released and which papers were held back and did they discuss this knowledge with her given that they had played a key role in managing the outcome of the TV3 interview on “corngate”? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the end of that question there was a “given” that cannot be authenticated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me put it this way. I heard the question. I will ask the Prime Minister to comment. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that they played no such role. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister give us any reason that an experienced civil servant with the reputation of Ruth Wilkie would make it up and write a memo with no basis in fact whatsoever about a meeting and a discussion that the Prime Minister says never happened? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said there was no meeting. Why officials wrote the memos they wrote is up to them to explain to others. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: At the time of the 17 July memo was the Prime Minister under the impression that all the relevant documentation had been released given her earlier comments in that respect and if she was not under that impression when did she become aware for the first time that the full range of documentation had not been released? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the course of the campaign when this issue arose I made it clear that I wanted all documentation released. I assumed that that instruction would have been followed. I found out in November it had not been. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I would like to clarify that answer that the Prime Minister has just given to Mr Dunne. Is she asking us to believe that she was not aware that the Ruth Wilkie memo of 17 July—which contradicts the Government’s statements—was not included in the Government dump until November; and even if she does expect us to believe that why was it not then released? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I am saying is that I had no idea that that department had held back any information until November. My understanding was that memos were then released in response to the request from Mr Price. I have not myself taken a detailed interest in the administration of that but I have always asked for all the information to be released. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Prime Minister was aware that the threshold test could not be met why did she nevertheless make assurances that it had been met? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I was being told in memos was that there was no reliable evidence of contamination at all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that everyone in this matter apart from the Prime Minister seems to be telling lies: Mary-Anne Thompson about a discussion she never had; Ruth Wilkie about a report that never existed; Mark Prebble about a decision that he apparently made on his own and that no one else in the Prime Minister’s department or Prime Minister’s office knew anything about; and given the Prime Minister’s track record of evasion in this House why should we believe everyone else is lying and not her? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the Opposition cannot suggest that a member of this House is telling a lie. I want him to stand withdraw— 
Hon Bill English 
: For what? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of the question. I want him to stand withdraw and apologise if he made that assertion. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify what you are pointing to as unparliamentary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last phrase. 
Hon Bill English 
: I said the Prime Minister had a track record of evasion in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said: “The last phrase.” 
Hon Bill English 
: So that one was OK—the evasion was all right? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was necessary to make that part of the question but it was not specifically out of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: OK. So which bit was out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last bit which the member knows suggested that she might have been lying. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was it when I said that she was accusing everyone else of lying or just of her lying? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. A member of this House cannot be accused of lying. He will withdraw and apologise for that comment if he made that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I am just having a bit of difficulty sorting out which bit is of concern to the House. I think the phrase went something like this—you can correct me if I am wrong—“given the Prime Minister’s track record of evasion in this House why should we believe everyone else was lying and not her?” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because that is an assumption that she is. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister can answer the rest of the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect it is a very simple question. No one is saying that the Prime Minister is lying but people are simply saying that if everybody else is not lying then it leaves open a huge vacuum as to what the truth is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed the question. The Prime Minister is going to answer it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Dr Prebble has confirmed that he did not tell me of his decision. Ms Thompson is on the public record in the  
Dominion Post 
 as saying she denied discussing the notes with Miss Clark. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister again: if she knew that the threshold test had not been met why did she go out before and during the election assuring the public of this country and all and sundry that in fact there was a threshold that was met and there was no concern which was the argument she made at the time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The argument at the time was that there was no reliable evidence of contamination and that is clearly borne out by officials. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm her contention that on the single biggest issue of the election campaign neither she nor her chief press secretary Mike Munro nor her chief of staff Heather Simpson knew anything about what decision had been made by Mark Prebble—a decision that was so bitterly contested in her department that a mid-level civil servant censured their own chief executive for getting it wrong; and why would we believe that no one in the Prime Minister’s office knew anything about any of that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because they were not told. 
State Housing—Unit Numbers 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How many State houses have been added to the Government’s social housing stock since 1999? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Since 1999 a total of 3438 State houses have been added to Housing New Zealand Corporation’s social housing portfolio. That restores the total number of State houses to 62750 and the total number of people housed to 179000. Income-related rents and State house acquisitions are ensuring that more New Zealand families get decent housing and represent a major turn-round from the disastrous policies of the 1990s that saw every single house in the questioner’s electorate sold off. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How many more State houses are planned over the next 3 to 4 years? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Housing New Zealand Corporation plans to add a further 3400 houses to the social housing stock over the next 4 years through build buy or lease programmes. Of course it will take some time to recover an appropriate level of social housing given that 13000 State houses—more than enough to accommodate the entire waiting list—were sold by the previous National Government. 
Pita Paraone 
: How many of those State houses already allocated went to immigrant families during the period from 1999; and what is the difference as a per centum between the number of those State houses already allocated to immigrant families compared with the number of those to New Zealanders? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am giving only one warning today about interjecting while a question is being asked and I tell Mr Peters that that one warning has been given. There will be no interjections while a question is being asked—particularly while being asked by a member of his own party. The Minister has the right to answer and that is the one warning today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respect that warning. However I hope that it applies to Government Ministers and others over there who are making all sorts of noises as well in an endeavour to try to deflect a fairly asked question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does. The point is well made and that warning applies to every single member of this House. I have given the one and only warning. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Houses are allocated purely on the basis of need and a very small proportion goes to immigrants. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: What is the Minister’s response to complaints that the Government’s purchase of 1800 houses in Auckland last year helped to fuel the rampant house-price inflation which caused Aucklanders to have to pay higher prices and higher rents while Labour supporters enjoyed nice houses at cheap rents? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My response is that that is nonsense. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What other comments has the Minister seen on the subject of the number of State houses required? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I recently noted the following comments on State house numbers: “The only basis on which the current policies could work would be to add a sufficient number of houses to accommodate those on the waiting list—over 11000 in number.” Ironically that statement came from a group who sold 13000 State houses—the previous National Government. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Minister’s last two answers. An Opposition member asked him whether it was correct that 1800 State houses had been bought in Auckland and the Minister said that that was nonsense. I take that to mean that 1800 houses have not been bought. He was then prepared to give a long statement in answer to what appeared to be a prepared patsy question in order to attack a previous administration. He is not prepared to answer questions about his own administration but he is wasting the House’s time in criticisms of a previous administration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that were correct it might be valid but the member did not ask just that in her question. There was another question asked and the Minister addressed it with an answer in which he did not agree with the member. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister concerned that there are many families who are ineligible for social housing assistance yet in line with the recent ASB survey—confirming that rising house prices are forcing first homeowners out of the market—those families have little hope of owning their own homes; if so does the Government intend doing something further about this issue or is his ministry concerned only with the housing needs of beneficiaries? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am concerned about New Zealanders getting into social housing and that is why I keep raising the fact that 13000 houses were sold by the previous Government. Yes the Government is concerned about homeownership which is why in this Budget we have started to re-enter that issue through the mortgage insurance scheme. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many new immigrants asylum seekers and refugees have been given State houses and what is the cost of that to this country? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have those figures with me but I am more than happy to pass them to the member if he would like them. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What else is the Government doing to increase the supply of social housing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has a large number of programmes under way as announced in the last Budget which run from the building of houses throughout the country and partnerships with local government and a range of community-based organisations to the leasing of properties from people who are investing their savings in housing and passing them on to tenants. A range of those kinds of policies will result in a real improvement in social housing. 
Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in each of her Ministers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she have confidence in a Minister of Immigration and a Minister of Health who have allowed to come into this country and now to clog up the wards in North Shore and Auckland hospitals hundreds of people with Third World diseases including tuberculosis cases where the wards are busting to overflowing—and 70 percent are immigrants—and how can that be a responsible way of defending the health of the New Zealand people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I understand it there is screening for a disease like tuberculosis. However it is always possible that some people present false fraudulent X-rays. I can say to the member that the Government does not tolerate that at all and if there is any evidence that people have done such they will certainly be prosecuted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister make that claim when she knows full well that a great number of the Somalis for example never had any test given to them in the first place and were let out early prior to having testing on the basis that they had to be reunited with their own people? Given that there are hundreds of cases and that we now have Third World diseases that we thought we had defeated how is that a responsible way for a Minister of Immigration and a Minister of Health to conduct the affairs of looking after the health of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Whether the rules are different for refugees I do not know. The member should ask that of the Minister of Immigration. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I’m asking you. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member wants an answer from me to a detailed question he should put it on specific notice. What I can say is that TB in this country unfortunately has not been restricted to those coming in from other countries in the years of poverty arising from the 1991 changes that appeared in our own community. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister make that allegation in respect of 1991 yet have no up-to-date information on the current crisis in North Shore and Auckland or is it like “paintergate”—she makes it up as she goes along? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that TB did appear in our own community in the 1990s when levels of poverty rose. As I said to the member if he wishes to ask questions about whether there are specific rules for refugees he should put them down. I do not have that information in front of me. 
Maori Television Service—Broadcasting Communications Ltd 
4.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he expect Broadcasting Communications Limited to remain the broadcast platform for the Maori Television Service; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 As the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand Ltd which owns BCL Ltd I am advised that BCL is involved in commercially sensitive negotiations with the Maori Television Service about the provision of its transmission platform. As the negotiations have not been completed I cannot comment further. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister defend his Government’s continued interference in broadcast platform decisions when a Maori Television Service legal opinion states that “Government approval is unnecessary in any event”; and given that statement why will the Government not allow the Maori Television Service to broadcast off the most readily available and cost-efficient platform available to it—that is Sky Television? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is not continually interfering in this matter. However I point out that taxpayers’ money is involved and therefore the Government of course has an interest. 
Mark Peck 
: What is BCL’s expertise in providing transmission platforms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: BCL’s customers include five national free-to-air networks; a number of community and niche market television broadcasters; New Zealand’s national pay television—UHF network; and national FM radio broadcasters. As well BCL provides telecommunication services to a wide and diverse range of customers including New Zealand’s major carriers Internet service providers and mobile radio communications networks. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it not the case that the Minister will insist that the Maori Television Service uses BCL rather than use a cheaper service from Sky so that he can prop up a Government company already facing a $20 million capital gains tax bill which he forgot about when he demanded that BCL be separated from TVNZ? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: BCL is trading profitably as a company and I understand it intends to carry on being a successful business. If the member is referring to the so-called $20 million bill that will come from the separation I have already said in the House that we anticipate paying not one cent. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is it that Ministers are personally able to interfere in what are actually commercial decisions regarding broadcast platforms for the service yet when we ask fundamental questions about its leadership and recent personnel departures we are told it is “an operational matter for the board” for which Government Ministers conveniently have no responsibility? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have to remind the member that I am the person who is the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand which owns BCL. Any questions he wants to ask me about this issue have to be about that one not about the Maori Television Service. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why did a Cabinet committee on Wednesday reject a Maori Television Service – backed Sky proposal to utilise one of its channels for the service when such an option would allow the Maori Television Service to go to air immediately and more cheaply; or is this just a case of the Government ignoring blatant commercial common sense so that it can line the pocket of its own transmission company with taxpayers’ cash? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I did not notice the member at the meeting but I remind him again that I am the Minister responsible for TVNZ and for BCL. I am not responsible for the Maori Television Service. He needs to ask the people responsible. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is it that $50 million worth of Government time energy and resources have been poured into the Maori Television Service on air—something it still has not achieved—whereas industry experts such as Jim Cross estimate that a mere $3 million would shore up regional local television stations across the entire country? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those are excellent questions and they should be put to the appropriate Minister. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last answer from the Minister raises a very interesting point. We have a Minister of Broadcasting who is presumably responsible for broadcasting policy and we have a separate Minister who is responsible for the Maori Television Service. The difficulty that arises in terms of submitting questions is where they actually cut across two boundaries. It is sometimes very difficult to ask a question about the Maori Television Service that does not impact upon broadcasting policy and I submit to you that the type of answer the member received from the Minister saying: “Well you should be asking my colleague.” is not exactly satisfactory—given that overlap. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might not be satisfactory and I might tend to agree with the member if that were fact. The fact is—as the Clerk has just advised me—he is not the appropriate Minister of which to ask the question. There is a Minister who is responsible. That Minister should be approached. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the 1½ page document between the United Future party and the Government in which nothing is covered at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Environment Minister 
5.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her statement of 24 July 2002 that the “Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance for GM contamination in seed imports.”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s head of biosecurity and the Ministry for the Environment’s head of hazardous substances and new organisms write a briefing paper to her on 24 May 2001 stating: “We have had to change the policy from December 2000 which was for a defined level of tolerance of GM because it was not consistent with the legislation”; how could they advise that unless there was a contamination tolerance that broke the law? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I understand that briefing paper also notes that back in November 2000 tests on seeds that had come into the country could not confirm that GM seed was present. It also states that Cabinet noted in December 2000 that inspection systems were being developed and that on 19 December I announced publicly that testing would be put in place to detect the presence of GM seed to the extent possible. The briefing paper shows the Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance of contamination. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is the Government’s policy still one of zero tolerance of GM presence in seed imports? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. The Government is very clear about its policy—unlike others in this House—because contrary to Dr Smith Dr Hutchison keeps calling for us to introduce a tolerance level for GM seed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible but I would be happy to seek leave to make a full statement of National’s policy if the House were interested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was making a comment which was a very short one. She finished what she had to say. The next supplementary question can take place. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister please explain to the House how she continues to claim a zero tolerance policy when two organisations she has responsibility for the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the MAF Biosecurity Authority have both signed a memorandum of agreement that clearly states that the certification of imported seed allows for a tolerance of GM contamination of up to 0.5 percent? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Without actually looking at that particular quote in front of me I know that this Government allowed for a 0.5 percent tolerance of uncertainty and a zero tolerance of contamination. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the memorandum of understanding which might help the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member could have raised this at the end of the question. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How does the Minister explain the memo from Bas Walker the Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority on 6 December 2000—the day the decision was made to allow the corn to grow—in which he stated: “Our conclusion is that measured against a contamination tolerance of 0.5 percent that existing material is acceptable i.e. it contains to a high level of probability less than 0.5 percent contamination. On this basis there is no case for destroying the grain or the crops. All of this however hangs off the acceptability of a 0.5 percent tolerance level. My assumption is that the Cabinet paper being prepared will seek Ministers’ agreement to this.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was a little long but I will allow it. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Cabinet paper quite clearly says to us that we will have a zero tolerance of contamination. We do accept a tolerance of uncertainty. I repeat again as I said in the House the other day one can have 100 percent certainty that there is no contamination only by testing every seed and by destroying every seed. Scientists will not accept any test that says it can guarantee that—that 100 percent tolerance of certainty. 
Larry Baldock 
: Was the Minister ever confused about the difference between a legal tolerance for the presence of GM and the accuracy threshold of scientific tests for the presence of GM; if not can she explain that difference for the benefit of those who do appear to have the two confused such as Dr Nick Smith? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is all right. The second is ruled out. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I was always clear that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act required zero tolerance of known GM seeds and to have been otherwise would have required me to change the Act. But I was also clear that there were limits to the testing. Testing could show down to a level of 0.5 percent that no GM seed was present. The two tolerances that are being confused throughout this whole hearing—by the authors of the book and by some of the people writing to each other in memos but never by this Government—is the zero tolerance of contamination that this Government held to and the 0.5 percent tolerance of uncertainty. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister expecting the House to believe that the head of biosecurity in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the head of hazardous substances and new organisms implementation within the Ministry for the Environment had it wrong when they advised her: “The initial approach by officials in December 2000 was to define a low level of acceptable GM presence. This was not consistent with the HASNO Act which does not allow any unapproved GM organisms. Our new approach is to reject any consignment that tests positive for presence of GM material.”; and how can that be interpreted in any way other than there was an allowable level of GM contamination? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: What officials may argue is very different from the policy that the Government followed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Could the Minister consider the memo from Ruth Wilkie to the Prime Minister on 28 May 2001—in which Ms Wilkie said: “There is a change of approach from that in December last year. Any positive test now will mean that the seed lot will be rejected.”—and tell the House what the change was that was being referred to? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I believe that Ms Wilkie was also confused—and said so in the committee of inquiry—between the notions of tolerance of contamination and tolerance of uncertainty. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that Dr Basil Walker who is in charge of the Environmental Risk Management Authority has said there was an acceptable level of tolerance noting that Dr Ruth Wilkie from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has said there was an acceptable level of contamination noting that Steve Vaughan— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: —who is in charge of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation within the Minister’s own department has said there was an acceptable level of contamination as has the head of biosecurity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed the member to use the word “noting” in three examples. I said that the third one was sufficient and he will now come to the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are we to believe that the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Prime Minister’s adviser and the head of biosecurity in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry have all got it wrong; if so how can we possibly have any confidence in the systems of biosecurity this country is running if the Minister is the only one with it right? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are two points I would like to make. In the member’s preliminary question before he made a second attempt at the question he was talking about levels of contamination levels of tolerance and levels of something else. Those are the kinds of arguments and the kind of misuse of terms that have been used by officials. The fact that we have clarity in our policy and absolutely zero tolerance in terms of knowingly accepting any genetically modified organism into this country has not changed since the day the Act was passed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If this is the same Minister who told the Local Government and Environment Committee that she had not read the Hager book because she did not want to contaminate her memory and who admitted that she wrote an article criticising the book—then could not remember whether she had written that article but could remember that she had certainly approved it—how are we to understand the workings of her mind over those minds of obviously qualified officials? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Mr Hager’s allegations were well canvassed in the media at the time and I heard them all. Once the facts had been checked I was easily able to rebut his allegations of a cover-up because there was no cover-up. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing paper to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Biosecurity on 24 May that refers to the contamination policy as being illegal. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing note to the Prime Minister from Ruth Wilkie saying the policy needed to be changed because it was unlawful. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
New Zealand Authors—Promotion to Children 
6.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives if any has the Government taken to encourage children to become familiar with New Zealand authors? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Ministry of Education will provide funding over the next 3 financial years to support the writers in schools programme which funds New Zealand writers to visit schools as part of four week-long programmes each year. It is targeted specifically at children in low-decile schools and aims to foster a love of books reading and writing. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How does that initiative fit within the Government’s wider policy agenda? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government is committed to improving the reading and writing skills of our children. We have invested considerably in literacy development over the past 4 years particularly in areas of teacher professional development and learning resources. The programme also encourages children to become familiar with New Zealand authors thereby supporting the Government’s goal to foster a strong national identity. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given the intention of Government to encourage children to become more familiar with New Zealand authors would it be Government policy that people should read books before they write about them—particularly noting that one of the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues believes it is possible to write about a book without having read it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is a wide variety of fiction available in New Zealand including Nicky Hager’s  
Seeds of Distrust 
. 
Maori Television Service—Chief Executive 
7.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Was Maori Television Service Chairman Mr Walden correct when he stated “at no time has the Maori Television Service sought any kind of confidentiality agreement with Mr Fox. Nor has it restrained him from discussing the reasons for his resignation”; and given that taxpayers’ money is involved when will the public be given an account of what is going on? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Mr Walden’s comments are a matter for himself and the Maori Television Service board. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That statement by the Minister of Maori Affairs is basically a refusal to answer the question. What is the point of the Minister being the Minister if he is saying that matters that go on with taxpayers’ money are nothing to do with him. Why has he taken a ministerial warrant? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should expand a little on the answer he has given. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the first instance it is an operational matter. Like any other business it is a human resource situation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to expand on that particular point just a little please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding tradition in this House for Government departments and even more for organisations further from the Government—for example Crown entities like the Maori Television Service—that personal matters which are operational matters and clearly under the Act of Parliament not a responsibility of individual Ministers are not answered by Ministers in this House. I ask you to consider your direction to the Minister. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We have an interesting dilemma. The whole House knows and possibly you know Mr Speaker if you read the weekend newspapers that Mr Fox told the country he would be quite happy to say what went on but that he was bound by a confidentiality agreement that prevented him from doing it. Mr Walden has said there is no confidentiality agreement. It would be absurd if a member of Parliament could not ask the Minister: “Who is lying? Is Mr Fox lying or is Mr Walden lying?”. Instead we have an answer we all know—it is an operational matter. So what Minister! Was there or was there not a confidentiality agreement? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister determined twice to answer in that particular way—that is that it was an operational matter. He is entitled to give that as an answer. That does not mean the House has to accept it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to take up the point that the Minister of State Services made about the conventions in the House. He stated there is a convention here that we do not hold Ministers responsible for operational matters. It used to be a convention that we could hold Ministers responsible for those things that they were directly responsible for like the actions of their civil servants decisions made by their departments and information released by them. It appears that it has become a convention—at least of this Government—that we cannot hold Ministers responsible even for Government departments for which they are directly responsible. Can I take it from that that you will accept the assertion made by the Minister of State Services that Ministers have no more responsibility for Crown entities these days than they do for Government departments? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 117/1 which basically states that as far as asking the question is concerned the member has a perfect right to ask the question. The Minister has a right to answer it in his way but obviously that does not mean that a member will always be satisfied with the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that is that the Minister can get up and say: “I don’t intend to answer because although I appointed the man to the head of the board his comments have nothing to do with me whatsoever.” Frankly this Minister and his officials have had at least 3½ hours in which to contact Mr Walden and be able to say to this House: “I have contacted Mr Walden and he assures me that that is correct.” That at least is what he owes this House. To get up having had access to all the information in a very simple way and say that he will not answer the question—by way of its being an operational matter—is simply treating this House with contempt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might say that and he is entitled to do so in response to the answer given but the question was properly asked and the answer given was in order in terms of the Standing Orders. I cannot put words in the mouth of the Minister but people are free to criticise that answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fully appreciate the dilemma that you are in—that the Speaker cannot make any Minister answer any question—but that is not quite the position we are in. The Minister is really asking us to accept a new convention because anything can be described as operational. It defies belief that the Minister does not know the answer. I think it would be helpful if you as Speaker would say that the parliamentary thing to be done by a Minister who knows the answer is to give it unless there is some reason of public policy that he should not. I cannot see what that could be as we have two senior officials—one is now an ex-official—one of whom has to be lying. The Minister is leaving suspicion over both of them and he should clear the person who is honest from the one who is dishonest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no convention—and I stress this point—about Ministers not being answerable for operational matters. I appreciate the point the member made at the start of his point of order—which is the dilemma any Speaker is in when an answer is given. The answer is not always acceptable to anybody else. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s reply could he clarify for the House and for the people of New Zealand which statement is true: the statement made by the chairman that there was no confidentiality agreement or the statement made by the former chief executive that there was; if he cannot clarify that how can the public possibly have any confidence that the $70 million poured into Maori television will ever deliver anything more than a complete and utter shambles? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said at the outset and I have sought advice from Mr Walden I was advised by the Maori Television Service this morning that it never sought a confidentiality agreement between the Maori Television Service and Mr Fox. However I am also advised by the Maori Television Service that Mr Fox’s lawyer did seek a confidentiality clause and the Maori Television Service agreed to that in one sentence. Shall I labour on about this? If this House is to adjust terms of reference in human resource development and people’s contracts then let us all have a look at our contracts. I understand that this is at an end. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not the first time that we have had a non-answer from this Minister. We have someone who says: “No can’t do that. Can’t answer the question.” and then once the Opposition has used up a few questions and the Minister comes under a bit of pressure he goes on to reveal the information he or she was asked for in the first instance. I put it to you that it is bringing this House into disrepute if Opposition members ask a question and the Minister says it is operational and he is not going to comment. He was defended by Mr Mallard in his response that it was operational. You backed the Minister and declared that if it was operational he did not have to comment. He then came out and gave the full answer that he should have given in the first instance. I ask you to rule that Ministers should give the proper answer upfront. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I object strongly to the member saying that I supported the Minister. I upheld the Standing Orders and I maintain that absolutely. I say to the Minister that I wish he had given that answer right at the start because that would have been the appropriate thing to do. I am not going to penalise any members who ask subsequent questions and they may carry on doing so if they wish. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is a case where you do have a sanction. There is no point in the Minister giving such a non-answer except to use up the Opposition’s questions which now under your rulings this year— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just indicated to the member that that is what I am doing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You are going to give us some extra questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Oh jolly good. Thank you. I am very much in favour of that answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were two parties whose members asked a question and they will get a question now—one to National and one to ACT. But the next question goes to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the position: did the board sign a confidentiality agreement with Mr Fox as denied at the start of the Minister’s answer or was one agreed to by Mr Fox and the board which was the suggestion the Minister made at the end of his answer because he said it was at the behest of Mr Fox’s lawyer? Is there or is there not a confidentiality agreement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I will clarify for my learned elder over there. Mr Walden is quite clear that Maori Television Service did not seek a confidentiality clause. It was sought in an overarching approach by Mr Fox’s lawyer. They are—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked in the primary question whether there was a confidentiality agreement. We still do not know whether the Minister’s view is that there is one or there is not one. But he seems to be alluding to the fact that Mr Fox’s lawyer sought a clause with regard to the full agreement that referred to confidentiality of a certain matter. Now if that is the case there is a confidentiality agreement. Could the Minister please say “Yes” or “No”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first point is that I understood the Minister did say there was a confidentiality agreement and that Mr Walden said there was one. I understood that quite clearly. Secondly I understood the Minister to say that Mr Fox’s lawyer wanted to have his own arrangement also. That to me certainly addressed the question that was asked. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Does the chair of the Maori Television Service board retain the confidence of the Minister? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes most certainly. His commercial acumen is well tested and well known in this country. 
Katherine Rich 
: Since the House is to understand that there is a confidentiality agreement can the Minister tell the House what this agreement covers? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said before if this House is about to adjust the rights of people and their contracts then that is something else we have to labour on. No. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister said “No” at the end of his question and that was in answer to the question. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said that it was not for the House to adjust agreements. That is not what the member asked. The member asked whether there was a confidentiality agreement and what it covered. The Minister did not in any way refer to the question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. He said “No”. He would not give the details. I heard him say that and so did the Clerk. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the Minister was asked whether he was aware of the agreement’s provisions not whether he would release them. He did not answer the question that was asked by Katherine Rich. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister did address that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the House correct to conclude that Derek Fox sought through his lawyer a confidentiality agreement which he now chooses to hide behind and that Mr Walden the Chairman of the Maori Television Service was incorrect when he said that there was no confidentiality agreement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In both parts the member is right. In the sense of what Mr Fox said and Mr Walden said from their own points of view I believe that they were giving honest answers. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was the chairman of the Maori Television Service factually correct when he said there was no confidentiality agreement binding Mr Fox? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been considering that last answer. Now we are in a real quandary and no one is any the wiser about what has gone on. We have just been told that Mr Walden was correct in saying there was no confidentiality agreement. The word “sought” was not in that question; the operative word that was in the primary question is not there. The straight factual question was: was he correct when he said that there was no agreement on confidentiality? The Minister’s answer was “Yes”. Well it cannot stand against the primary answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an answer that certainly addressed the question that was asked. He said “Yes”. I cannot think of any more specific answer than that. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Speaking to the point of order can I clarify this quite clearly. Mr Walden did not seek an agreement. The Maori Television Service board did not seek the agreement. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think anyone in the House wants the Minister to commit a breach of privilege and it is possible that his answers are still correct because one interpretation still lies open from the Minister which he has not clarified. It is this: yes Mr Fox’s lawyers sought a confidentiality agreement and yes it was granted but in no way does that confidentiality agreement prevent Mr Fox from saying what has happened—it might prevent the Maori Television Service. It would be helpful if he would clarify that because it would indicate that Mr Fox has actually been telling porkies in the media. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is correct. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s performance today in evading answers and wasting the time of the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member just come to the question please. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is now anything stopping Mr Fox from telling the truth—yes or no? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that in any other self-respecting democracy a Minister could have survived at the end of such a procedure as we just heard in this question. The fundamental facts are that we now think or have been told that there was no agreement; then that there was an agreement that Mr Fox sought it and that it was granted. The last answer given to Mr Prebble was that Mr Fox was telling porkies. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it was. Now Mr Fox has been called a liar yet to a prior question the Minister said that Mr Fox’s lawyers had sought a confidentiality clause and it had been granted. So Fox was not telling lies but today he is. At the end of this debacle—which is an absolute shambles the like of which I have not seen in Parliament—the Prime Minister has to ask herself what is going on with her administration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Whether the answers are correct or consistent is a matter for examination and debate not for a point of order. 
Environmental Risk Management Authority—Review 
8.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is she satisfied with the progress the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has made in addressing the recommendations of the review of ERMA; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes I have received both a draft report—I think a second version on the one that was given in confidence to the select committee—and verbal advice from the chair of the authority that action has been either completed or substantially taken on 40 of the review’s 49 recommendations. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What concrete actions has the authority taken since the release of the review to address the serious criticisms in that review and what practical effect will they have on the authority’s management of the risks of genetic engineering? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: A number of actions have been taken to strengthen the authority’s governance role in line with the whole chapter of recommendations to do with governance. They include defining the responsibilities of the authority and the board a stronger focus on governance duties and a restructuring of the authority’s standing committees. There has also been a formal self-assessment of the authority’s governance performance a performance review of its chief executive officer and a strict guideline set for the following year. I could go on. A number of very practical recommendations have been taken. 
Moana Mackey 
: What did the review say about the authority’s performance as the independent decision-maker controlling the introduction of new plants and animals including genetically modified organisms? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The review team found that the authority contained a good cross section of the necessary skills and experience. Furthermore the staff of the agency that supports the authority are of an extremely high calibre. The review panel’s report stated in paragraph 2.5.1 that it concentrated on what could be improved rather than on what is already sound and effective. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Did the Cabinet policy committee on 9 April 2003 note that economic modelling results suggest that the release of GM organisms closer to the human food chain poses greater risk than releases from medical or pest control purposes; if so what expectations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the Government imposed to cater for that reality? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The expectations I have expressed in discussions with the chair of the authority are that if there are issues to do with genetically modified organisms coming directly into our food chain as a result of any release conditional or otherwise I would consider that probably a serious enough matter to do a call-in. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In view of the statements in the review that “there are tensions between staff of the agency and their counterparts in MAF over the efficacy of some controls and the regularity of monitoring imposed” and “it is at this point that the system of risk management for new organisms is most vulnerable” is she happy with the authority’s response to the Education and Science Committee that the operating agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is “a cooperative arrangement that already functions very effectively”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: In response to the review panel’s report on recommendations 16 and 49 arrangements are in place for regular and ongoing dialogue between the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on new organisms controls on setting out the monitoring that goes with that and on setting out who is responsible in which particular area so that there are none of the miscommunications of the past. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is she concerned that the authority’s current methodology for analysing risks costs and benefits analyses only the financial costs and benefits to the applicant and completely ignores economic costs to neighbouring farmers and to New Zealand as a whole? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am quite confident from discussions I have had with the chair of the authority that the economic costs to New Zealand as a whole will be taken into consideration in the methodology that is under review at the moment. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that the authority’s replies to the select committee on the actions it has taken to implement the 49 recommendations show it is in denial that any of the serious problems identified by the committee even exist and that her answers tend to support that denial? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The draft the member saw which was a primary draft—and I have seen further work since then—does not seem to me to show that the authority is in denial. It does say that work is in progress and that since the report was written and since the review some of those recommendations have been fully met and undertaken. I have total confidence in the Environmental Risk Management Authority. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statements on TV3 on Wednesday 10 July 2002 that “we really went back and sought further information as to whether there was a threshold level that had been breached. That’s my recollection.” and “my recollection was that on testing and sampling it was determined that it didn’t pass a sufficient threshold level to be considered a problem.” with the statement by her Minister for the Environment that the “Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance for GM contamination in seed imports.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Easily. There was and still is a legal requirement for zero tolerance and no reliable evidence of contamination was found. The threshold the Government adhered to throughout was zero. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did she receive read and understand a memo from Ruth Wilkie on 28 May 2001 alerting her personally to the fact that the Government had been operating a policy “inconsistent with existing legislation” or did she regard that memo as just another fantasy on the part of Ruth Wilkie who apparently can make up memos about meetings that never happened and in this case made up a memo about a policy that never operated? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I have seen that memo and that memo did not alert me to any change of Government policy. What it alerted me to—and the member for Nelson has referred to this in an earlier question—was debate going on between officials as to whether as the National spokesperson on science believes there should have been a permissible level of GM contamination. That was never the position Ministers adopted. 
Hon Bill English 
: How is it that in making those quotes the Prime Minister seemed to have a detailed recollection of the details of testing procedures when she has maintained all along that she never took much interest in the issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The problem with that interview without notice was that the Prime Minister was being asked to recall things that had happened a year and 9 months before and in which she had not had any central part in driving at all. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Prime Minister still want the Broadcasting Standards Authority to force TV3 to pay $25000 and apologise for not in the authority’s terms “achieving balance in regard to the issue of Government accountability and trustworthiness”; if so what does the Prime Minister think that that says about abuse of power in high office to compel TV3 to apologise for tackling her with what is now shown to have been the truth however viciously she denied it at the time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a matter of record that a Broadcasting Standards Authority decision stated that the Prime Minister had been treated unfairly that the programme was unbalanced and that it lacked objectivity and impartiality. On the basis of those findings the parties were asked to make submissions on what actions should follow and my lawyer did. We made a submission on the basis that costs should be paid in the light of those findings. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s deep concern about whether she is treated fairly or is a victim of her own success—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that you enforce the requirements you indicated earlier that there would be no interjections during questions. There were at least three including one from Nick Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the member to carry on with his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s deep concern that she is treated fairly and not as a victim of her own success does she believe she is treating Ruth Wilkie fairly with her allegations today that Ms Wilkie manufactured the story about a meeting between the Prime Minister and Mary Anne Thompson where they discussed what documents were going to be released and what documents were going to be held back and is that fair to Ruth Wilkie? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made no such allegation. What I will say is that no leader of the National Party has been less successful than that one. He would not know what success was if he fell over it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In answering that question the Prime Minister effectively denied what she has already said in question time which was that the meeting referred to in the Wilkie memo never happened. As I understand it the record of the House shows that the Prime Minister said the memo never happened—she said that the meeting never happened; of course the memo did and that is unfortunate for her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter of debate; it is not a matter of whether the answer addressed the question. If the member thinks the House has been misled he has a proper process to follow. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister climbed to her feet gave her denial then launched into an attack on the questioner. How is that possibly within the Standing Orders  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or the proper conduct of the affairs of this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct the Prime Minister should not have had that last part of the answer but she certainly addressed the question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What did the Prime Minister understand to be the change of approach referred to in Ruth Wilkie’s memo of 28 May 2001 in which she appears to contrast the previous position of “a defined level of tolerance” with the new standard “any positive result will mean that the seed lot will be rejected”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My analysis of these papers would suggest that Ms Wilkie was referring to a matter that the member for Nelson brought to the attention of the House earlier in question time today and that was paragraph 24 of a memo to the Minister for Biosecurity and the Minister for the Environment which referred to an initial approach proposed by officials. That was never an approach that the Ministers adopted but as the member will know if she has conscientiously been through 1800-plus pages of evidence there seemed to be a great debate going on between officials as to whether they were talking about probability statistical levels of confidence or against permissible levels of contamination as advocated by Dr Paul Hutchison National’s spokesperson on science. 
Tourism—Marketing Japan 
10.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What is being done to encourage recovery in the inbound tourism market from Japan? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 The House may be aware that the Japan outbound traveller numbers have dropped significantly as a result of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) virus just as they did following the events of 11 September 2001. Key Government agencies and sector representatives are working in close partnership to promote the recovery of our fourth-largest tourism market. In this regard last week I travelled to Japan to work with Tourism New Zealand on our Japan market recovery programme. I announced there the doubling of Tourism New Zealand’s funding for the successful “100 Percent Pure New Zealand” campaign in Japan. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What other initiatives are planned to encourage visitors from Japan? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As well as an increase in the marketing budget for Japan New Zealand will have a major presence coordinated by Tourism New Zealand involving 20 New Zealand tourism operators at the Japan Association of Travel Agents World Travel Fair in Yokohama in October. It will also be sponsoring the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra performance in Osaka around the “100 Percent Pure New Zealand” campaign. My discussions with industry leaders in Japan make me confident the Japan market recovery programme will assist and encourage Japanese visitors to return to New Zealand just as they did after a similar promotional partnership between industry and the Government during 2001. 
Mike Ward 
: Is the Minister not concerned that his campaign to promote “100 Percent Pure New Zealand” to attract Japanese tourists will be undermined if the Government lifts the GE moratorium given that 76 percent of Japanese people believe that GE is bad for their health and the environment? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No. 
Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister 
11.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Research Science and Technology and Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Government intend to implement a compulsory agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research levy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government remains optimistic about a voluntary level. It waits with eager anticipation to see whether the National Party has a policy on withdrawing from the protocol. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is her Government considering a politically less-damaging way of collecting revenue to fund research into the gaseous by-products of the ruminant gut as an alternative to the “fart and burp tax” promoted by her Minister Hodgson; if so what are those alternative revenue-gathering proposals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is no such tax as the member knows. The Government will continue to talk to its friends and colleagues in the farming industry. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Prime Minister’s statements that she is a strong front-footing leadership Prime Minister does she plan to meet the farmers on the front steps of Parliament on Thursday to explain the Government’s position on the flatulence tax; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have engagements in Auckland on Thursday. 
Growth and Innovation Framework—Hightech Companies 
12.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What commitment has the Government given recently to high-tech companies which meet the objectives of the coalition Government’s growth and innovation framework to establish New Zealand as a centre of excellence for innovative development? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 On Monday it was announced that Investment New Zealand’s strategic investment fund will provide a $2 million guarantee for technology assistance support to Auckland biotechnology company Protemix. Protemix will apply to the Foundation for Research Science and Technology under its existing programmes and criteria and any difference between the available assistance from the foundation and the $2 million will be underwritten by Investment New Zealand. The deal will ensure that New Zealand retains and recruits the pool of scientists business people and scientific entrepreneurs it needs to participate fully in the global biopharmaceutical market—all objectives of the growth and innovation framework strategy. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Why did Investment New Zealand get involved in this venture given that any investment in new research is by definition financially risky? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Protemix has attracted significant interest from venture capitalists to provide it with most of the financial capacity it needed to continue its drug-discovery development and commercialisation programme. The provision of the strategic investment fund underwritten to enable Protemix to complete its $2 million capital-raising programme allows control of Protemix its drug-discovery and development pipeline and its team of scientists to remain in New Zealand while allowing for international collaboration and partnering for commercialisation of its discoveries. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is not Protemix’s new diabetes treatment an example of the widely supported well-tested laboratory-based biotechnology that New Zealand is good at and which has the potential to bring substantial economic gains to the country; if so why did the Government persist in wanting to undermine this success by pursuing other forms of biotechnology that threaten our health environment and economy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government is supporting Protemix because it is an example of an innovative creative industry which holds significant promise not only to New Zealanders in the diabetes situation but to the world itself. I would have thought that for once the Greens could celebrate that fact with this Government and all New Zealanders. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What is the significance of the biotechnology sector to New Zealand’s chances of becoming a wealthier nation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Biotechnology is one of the focus sectors of the growth and innovation framework because it has particular scope to add significant value to our already world-class primary sectors. In this case Protemix develops new therapies for diabetes and associated cardiovascular disease as well as for metabolic disorders. It has a number of diabetes-related drugs under development including one capable of generating annual revenue of NZ$1500 million or more for diabetic heart disease. The $2 million underwrite is reflective of this coalition Government’s commitment to expand significantly the biotechnology sector of New Zealand. 
Questions to Members 
Local Government and Environment Committee—Prime Minister 
1.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: Will the chairperson be requesting the Prime Minister to attend a meeting of the committee in relation to the inquiry into “corngate”; if so when? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): 
 The committee considered a motion to that effect last week and it was not agreed to. As far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How can the committee credibly carry out its own terms of reference—in particular whether a contamination tolerance level was accepted by the Government in 2000—in light of the memorandum to the Prime Minister by Ruth Wilkie on 8 December 2000 headed “Possible contamination of imported seed with genetically modified material” and stating: “We cannot say whether we have reliably discovered contamination in the corn currently planted but equally we cannot say that we have completely discounted it” and the Prime Minister’s statement on 11 July the eve of the election— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. The member knows full well that the chairperson is responsible for her actions as chairperson. She is not responsible for voting decisions by individual members of the committee and the question relates to that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A committee has set up an inquiry to publicly investigate this matter and I think I am entitled to ask the committee—not the chairperson—how it believes it can discover whether there has been a cover-up and whether the Prime Minister’s statement on the eve of the election that “I can state categorically that the tests confirm that there was no evidence that there was GE contamination.” was true or whether it was a complete cover-up by the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 22/1 (Supplement). He knows full well that it is the chairperson alone not the committee who can be asked about her actions as chair. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are going to put it that way I ask the chairperson why she regards the matter as ending at this point given the fact that the Prime Minister made a public statement categorically denying that there was any GE contamination which was in contradiction to statements given to her by her own officials. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I believe the committee has ample written evidence in front of it to reach a conclusion eventually about whether a threshold was set. We are seeking additional scientific interpretation of test results to help us with the question of just what those results showed in terms of likely contamination. Those are important terms of reference for the committee and I believe we can answer them with the information we have. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it true that the chairperson was threatened by Labour that if she voted for my motion in favour of the Prime Minister coming before the committee there would be adverse consequences for the Green Party in any future coalition? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: No. 
Local Government and Environment Committee—Genetically Modified Sweetcorn 
2.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: When will the committee next meet to discuss the inquiry into the alleged accidental release of genetically engineered sweetcorn plants in 2000 and the subsequent actions taken? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): 
 While a committee schedule is always subject to change I am anticipating that the next meeting on the inquiry will be on 18 September after the committee has had the opportunity to make further progress on the dogs legislation. 
David Parker 
: Did the Hon Dr Nick Smith disclose to the select committee his conflict of interest as a trustee of the Cawthron Institute when he nominated the expert adviser from Cawthron to independently advise the select committee on the sweetcorn inquiry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The obligation on members to declare pecuniary interests falls on the member concerned not on the Speaker or on the chairperson of a select committee. If members feel that the obligation has not been complied with there is a procedure for raising it with the Speaker. That question is not in order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the issue that has been raised. The Cawthron legislation provides that the member of Parliament for Nelson will be a trustee. When the Local Government and Environment Committee sought an independent adviser I told the committee of my involvement. I said that the Cawthron Institute of which I had some knowledge was completely independent of Government. The final decision on the selection of the adviser was made by the Clerk of the House because the committee had a tied vote and could not come to a conclusion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you now to consider your ruling. The question asked of the chair was not around the question of pecuniary interest but about whether a declaration of conflict of interest had been made at the committee. There is clearly disagreement as to those facts and the matter could be easily cleared up by the chair of the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is nothing to do with the House or the Speaker. That question is out of order. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What concerned me during that supplementary question from Mr Parker—which was in no way connected to his original question which was about when the committee was next to meet—was that you immediately rose to your feet and read your ruling from a piece of paper. That leads me to believe that you or the Clerk had been given advance notice of the second question that Mr Parker was to ask and therefore have in some way bought into the stunt that the Government has pulled in the House. I want an assurance that you were not given notice of the content of the supplementary question. If the Clerk was given it and then went to you we can deal with the issue in a different way but I want an assurance from you that you were not being used by the Government in this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely. I want to say that as far as I am concerned the Clerk saw the question we talked about it at our meeting and I said that we had better have a ruling ready in case something was asked that was out of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I also say to the House that the Clerk knew because the words were in the original question. That is how we knew. I had no knowledge of the question being asked until I saw it on the Order Paper. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table in the House the minutes associated with the appointment of the technical adviser to the Local Government and Environment Committee so the record can be absolutely clear to the House as to how that appointment was made. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In elaboration of subsequent actions that the Local Government and Environment Committee will take will the chairperson be taking into account that this committee of inquiry was set up at the suggestion of the Prime Minister as stated in her press release; and given that does she not think it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister were to front up and tell the House the truth? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I can confirm that when the committee first discussed the suggestion that there be an inquiry into this matter we had reference to the statement the Prime Minister made that she would be happy for a select committee to inquire into it. I have no further comment to make about the Prime Minister’s appearance. That matter was resolved by resolution of the committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If she asserts as she did that she was not under any pressure from the Prime Minister what did she think that attack yesterday was all about or does she still think she is on the Prime Minister’s Christmas card list? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can answer the question if she wishes. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I would just point out to the member that the vote on whether to request the Prime Minister to attend took place last week. The Prime Minister’s statements about me took place yesterday. I do not think that one could have affected the other. 
Question No. 1 to Member 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My first point of order is in respect of the number of questions today. I think you might be in error as to the counting of supplementary questions from the Government side in that a supplementary question was not asked in question No. 1. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary questions are counted on the ordinary 12 questions. They are not counted on questions to members. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the 13 March 2003 meeting when Dr Smith voted in favour of requesting the Clerk of the House to advise who would be the best of two experts to assist the committee but did not disclose his conflict of interest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has already been sought and granted but I will seek leave for that particular meeting’s minutes to be tabled. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under a point of order you have allowed a member’s word to be questioned. Dr Nick Smith stood up in this House by leave and gave a personal explanation as to what had happened and then we had this fish at the back take a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be expressed tersely and without any interjection. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: You allowed Mr David Parker to stand up at the back take a point of order and directly contradict the personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned I realised that there was a request for something to be tabled and I heard something about minutes. At that point I ceased listening because I understood what the member had asked to be tabled. If the member was using that to question the word of another member he will stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Parker 
: No Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right that is all that needs to be said. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The honourable member Dr Nick Smith sought leave of the House to table the minutes. That does not impose upon him any obligation to table the minutes. I too sought leave to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish the member would read the Standing Orders. If he says he has leave to table them he is expected to table them. If he does not then he faces the— 
Hon Member 
: It’s optional. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with that. It is still optional. I have now been assured by the member that he will table the minutes and every member of the House heard him give that assurance. 
Immigration Amendment Bill 
Instructions to CommitteeCWH 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Immigration Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 131. 
I begin by thanking the parties in the House that have responded positively to my request that support be given to the Supplementary Order Paper in my name. I apologise for the lateness of the advice to parties; however the High Court decision that it addresses was delivered on 7 August 2003. I took immediate advice from the Department of Labour a paper was taken to Cabinet committees last week and this measure was confirmed by Cabinet yesterday and by our own caucus today. As soon as our caucus confirmed the introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper I signed letters to each of the parties and received immediately positive responses from United Future the National Party and New Zealand First. I thank them for their willingness to address what is a fundamental flaw in the Immigration Act. 
Details of the Mohebbi case were reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Friday 8 August. This is a very important decision; it has very serious implications for New Zealand’s security and it is a matter that this House must address. We have the opportunity of the Immigration Amendment Bill to do so. Essentially the individual concerned utilised every avenue to remain in New Zealand including marrying a New Zealander despite already being married to another woman. He was convicted of bigamy and his residence application—quite rightly—was declined. A further appeal to the Removal Review Authority on the basis of a new relationship and a new son was dismissed. The authority observed: “The appellant’s evidence is untrustworthy and he will mould his evidence to suit whatever current purpose he has.” He was given 7 days to leave New Zealand. He did not. He came to the attention of the police in March this year and as a result was detained under the Immigration Act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There were 20000 overstayers. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Mr Peters’ party has already agreed to support this amendment to the Immigration Act and therefore I would have thought his assistance would be rather more graciously given. 
Mr Mohebbi then applied to the High Court for an interim restraint of the decision to remove him ahead of judicial review. This was dismissed as hopeless by the High Court. The substantive application for judicial review still awaits a full hearing. 
In the meantime the New Zealand Immigration Service has been unable to remove Mr Mohebbi. Why? Because it cannot get a travel document for him. Why? Because he has refused to request one from his own country’s embassy. The 3-month limitation on detention under section 60 of the Immigration Act came to an end so the Immigration Service sought to detain him under section 138A. Under that section an immigration officer—where the officer has good cause to suspect that a person is in New Zealand unlawfully and is liable to be removed—for the purpose of establishing identity may request that the person provide documents. If the person fails to comply with this provision he or she may be placed in custody and brought before the District Court to establish identity. 
The District Court accepted this approach in June this year largely because a failure to do so and I quote from the judge “countenanced the deliberate non-compliance with New Zealand laws”. The District Court therefore ordered the respondent to produce a passport or to assist the Immigration Service in the application for one and ordered his continued detention for 30 days or until the order was complied with and brought back for determination of identity. The judge said for the sake of completeness that he would have made those orders even if he had been satisfied as to identity. 
On an application under the Habeas Corpus Act the High Court ruled that section 138A could not be used in that way and that as section 60 had a 3-month limitation he could not be held under the Immigration Act. Justice Chambers concluded “albeit with some reluctance” that a writ of habeas corpus must be issued and ordered the release of Mr Mohebbi. 
That result was not in the minds of the drafters of section 60. That provision was written into the Act in 1999. I sat on the select committee that considered the bill and I cannot recall even discussing the possibility of such wilful non-cooperation leaving New Zealand exposed to the release from detention of such an individual. The Supplementary Order Paper will enable a judge not the Immigration Service to extend the warrant of commitment where the person’s own action or inaction either directly or indirectly results in the person being unable to leave New Zealand. 
In conclusion I want to mention that another individual was released by the District Court as a result of the Mohebbi decision. That individual is back in custody but I have to say in terrible circumstances. That individual is facing charges following the shooting of a Manurewa woman in her backyard almost 3 weeks ago. Although those are only charges at this stage they serve to highlight the danger associated with our not addressing this important matter. 
I believe that the House is quite right to allow the Committee of the whole House to extend its consideration of the Immigration Amendment Bill to include a matter that is not normally within its ambit. I therefore call on members of the House to support this motion. Again I thank members of United Future the National Party and New Zealand First for setting aside politics on this occasion and agreeing to address this urgent matter. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The Minister of Immigration has outlined to the House the reasons for this Supplementary Order Paper 131 which does not meet the requirements under the Standing Orders for its inclusion in the Immigration Amendment Bill. The National Party will be supporting the changes proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper but by no means do we appreciate or approve of the manner in which the Minister has handled this important matter. 
The Minister has told the House that an individual was released by the courts under a habeas corpus finding 3 weeks ago—nearly a month ago. The court released a man who is to say the least an undesirable individual and today the Minister rocks up and thinks she will get Parliament to support her legislation. Well we are going to support the proposed Supplementary Order Paper because clearly there is a problem. But the Minister has caused an even bigger problem by sitting on her backside for nearly 4 weeks after finding out that this problem existed. By her own admission on 7 August this year the High Court made its ruling and here we are into the month of September and the Minister has asked us this morning to treat this matter as urgent. I want to know from that Minister how it can be that nearly a month after this person was released she finally decides to tell Parliament that she has a problem and she wants Parliament to help her solve it. I say to the Minister today that although we will cooperate with the passage of the Supplementary Order Paper we condemn the fact that the Minister has waited for a month with this person roaming the streets. We have already been told by the Minister today that other individuals have been released who are a danger to public safety. The Minister should have dealt with this matter with much greater expedition. 
I will tell the House about the nature of the letter she sent to the Leader of the Opposition this morning. In it she says that this is an important matter and apologises for the late notice—well that is no good. She says that the reason for it is that Cabinet approved the Supplementary Order Paper yesterday and it has been approved by the Government caucuses this morning. Well there are several matters that come out of that. First of all why has Cabinet taken so long on such an important matter? This matter could have gone to Cabinet after the decision was made by the court. It is a simple simple matter to deal with. The Minister must have known that it might need to be dealt with in that way. She was represented at the court hearing and the advice given to her officials must have been that they were likely to lose this matter in court. I fail to believe that the competent counsel representing the Minister—not the department—would not have forewarned her that this matter would be lost in court. Justice Chambers’ reasoning in his decision is crystal-clear and I cannot believe that Crown counsel would not have said to the Minister: “Look we’ll go through the motions but he’s going to let the guy out.” The Minister should have said to the next Cabinet meeting that she had a problem that this guy had been let out the previous week and that she wanted to deal with this matter urgently. 
If she had picked up the phone rung me up and said she wanted to get this thing before the House I would have given her my cooperation. I know that Mr Prebble would have loved to have a telephone call from the Minister of Immigration—it is one of the highlights of his life to get a telephone call from the Minister of Immigration—and Mr Peters would have been even more pleased to get a telephone call from the Minister of Immigration. If she had just said: “I’ve just lost this court case and I want to deal with it.” I am sure they would have cooperated—even more so if she had rung them the week before to say: “I’ve got an important court case and Crown counsel says I’m going to lose.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: “I’m looking foolish can you help me?” 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am not sure that anyone can help the Minister when it comes to her looking foolish but I do want to say that members on this side of the House would have been much more predisposed to help the Minister out of the hole she is in had she bothered to consult and had she bothered even to behave competently by taking action at the earliest possible time. Instead we have this letter that says this action was ticked off by Cabinet yesterday and“It was approved by the Government caucuses this morning.” 
I do not know which Government caucuses we are talking about here; I guess we are talking about the Labour Party caucus. Does the letter mean that the Progressive Coalition had a caucus meeting? That would have been a well-attended affair—there was probably 100 percent attendance in a telephone booth somewhere over the back of Parliament! I want to know what the other caucuses are that the Minister refers to in her letter when she says they approved this matter this morning. I want to know whether the United Future party which seems to be the Government’s current lackey of choice was consulted about this matter and maybe Mr Adams can answer that. Mr Adams does not seem to know the answer to that. Maybe the Minister just talked to Mr Dunne and he spoke for his caucus without actually asking it. This is an important matter. Were the Greens consulted on this? No one in the Green Party seems to know anything about it. The Minister has asked for cooperation on the basis that the Government caucuses were consulted. I want to know which parties were brought into the loop that the National Party was closed out of. Mr Peters seems to be surprised by this matter and so does Mr Prebble. The Minister will have to do better if she wants cooperation from Parliament. 
 I accept as I have said that Justice Chambers’ decision means that the Government has a problem and that Parliament needs to do something to rectify it. It is quite clear that Judge Blaikie was acting with the best of motives and I have read that decision. But section 138A is clearly an inappropriate section for him to have applied here and the solution is for section 60 to be modified. The course that is proposed by the Supplementary Order Paper which provides for a new clause 15A in the bill is an approach that will meet that requirement. 
But I want to say to the House that having individuals with dodgy pasts coming to New Zealand is a very serious matter. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When did he come to New Zealand? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: He came to New Zealand in 1997. I say to the Minister that this is not a party political matter; all parties should take this seriously. Many members here think the institution of marriage is an important one but this fellow seems to have excessive enthusiasm in that regard and accordingly has been convicted of a charge of bigamy. But the Minister has already told the House that more serious charges are faced by others who might escape under this provision. 
I say to the Minister that Parliament should take the toughest possible line. We should say to the Iranian Ambassador—and I want the Minister to answer this question—that it is not good enough for his Government to behave as it has behaved in this matter whereby it has refused to supply a passport or a travel document when other nations would have complied with a request from the New Zealand Government without this individual having to sign an application. I want to know whether that message has been conveyed by the Government. I want it to be conveyed by Parliament this afternoon. The Iranian Ambassador had better be told. This is not a friendly act on the part of his Government and he should be held to account for it. The Minister needs to tell him that some members in this House certainly believe that a more cooperative stance is required in future. I say to the Minister that if she wants these matters to be dealt with cooperatively then she had better deal with them competently early and with consultation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very willing to support the Minister of Immigration in this area. I suspect that we will have to support the Minister in this area time and time again because of the 20000 or so overstayers we have in this country. How many of them come within this type of category or after this issue is resolved other categories? Because of the failure of this Government to prevent people who should not be here from coming into this country because of it allowing people who should be removed more promptly to stay in this country we have this dreadful situation where not only do we have massive immigration here but also we have a massive number of people who are just staying on willy-nilly and this Labour Government is incapable of doing anything about it. 
Parliament this afternoon has to halt its proceedings so that a special Supplementary Order Paper dealing with a certain Amir Mohebbi can be incorporated in some legislation before the House and we can get rid of him from New Zealand. He has been here since 4 July 1997. New Zealand is an absolute soft touch. I know that one could ask who was in Government then but all I ask is who has been in Government for the last 4 years and has allowed him to continue to stay in New Zealand. The Labour Party has been in Government. It has been its responsibility to do something about it. [ 
Interruption 
] Damien O’Connor can chip away from the middle of an aisle as much as he likes; he should get into his seat and perhaps make a decent interjection. The Labour Party has been in Government for 4 years. We have heard about this for barely 30 minutes and New Zealand First is ready to cooperate. The High Court judgment was on 7 August which is almost a month ago and this Government has been sitting on its hands for all that time not doing anything about it. [ 
Interruption 
] It would be interesting to see whether a lawyer or two or three or four— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How much legal aid in this case? 
DAIL JONES 
: Will the Minister tell us whether this person was legally aided—another sip at the New Zealand bowl of fairness and charity? It has been suggested that he is bigamous. Of course in Islamic law to marry a second time is not bigamous. That is one of the problems with bringing people like this into the country. The Minister for Ethnic Affairs Mr Carter says we have to look after their ethnic rights and suchlike; in that case we should not be charging them with bigamy. Mr Carter takes the view that we have to be nice to people. In Islamic law two three or four marriages are permitted. If a man wants to renounce an Islamic marriage he just has to walk around the woman three times and say: “I divorce thee. I divorce thee. I divorce thee.” and he is divorced. That is the sort of culture Mr Carter supports. That is the sort of person who comes into New Zealand. It is not surprising we have some problems. 
I am sure the vast majority of people who come to New Zealand under lawful means make a worthwhile contribution to this country. New Zealand supports people coming to New Zealand under lawful means regardless of where they come from—whether they come from Iran Iraq England South Africa or China. What we get upset about time and time again—and here we have highlighted it once more—is someone coming to New Zealand illegally and this Government doing nothing about it for the 4 years or so that it has been in administration. We are very concerned about that. 
Since 4 July 1997 this person has been here and it has just drifted on and on. It has cost the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money. It has gone before Judge Blaikie in the District Court at Manukau then it has gone before Judge Singh. He made identical orders to Judge Blaikie’s. We now have the situation under the Habeas Corpus Act. This is a person who for a while denied that Mohebbi is his name. Finally Judge Blaikie noted that Mr Mohebbi had refused to produce a passport despite being requested to do so. Over the past 6 years this person has given a number of explanations as to where his passport is. Most recently he has asserted that he left his passport in Iran when he left there in the first half of 1997. He has said he boarded a plane for New Zealand with a false passport which he destroyed before his plane landed in New Zealand. There may be good cause to doubt the truth of this account. In any event this person has steadfastly refused to produce a passport. All that can be said is that it may be because he is simply unable to do so. Justice Chambers made it clear in the High Court that this person is deliberately flouting New Zealand’s immigration law. There is no doubt that he is in the country unlawfully. He has taken advantage of the Iranian Embassy’s refusal to issue a passport for him without it having an application that he has personally signed. 
Mr Woolford who must be one of the counsel in the case said that is an unusual stance for an embassy to take. Normally foreign embassies will issue on the application of our Immigration Service if not a passport then at least a travel document to permit their national to be removed from New Zealand and returned to their homeland. One can only say one is terribly disappointed in the attitude of the Iranian Embassy. As a result of that embassy’s attitude we now have the situation where at least one person from Iran is bringing other Iranians into disrepute. I suggest to the Iranian Ambassador consul or chargé d’affaires that he is not doing anything to improve New Zealand- Iranian relations or to improve our attitude toward Iranians as a whole by adopting that approach. It is interesting that other embassies take the view that they will issue papers. I understand that six embassies adopt the stance of the Iranian embassy. 
It seems to me that one consideration that a Government could take into account here—it seems that no thought has been given to it—is to deem in legislation a power of attorney for someone who refuses to sign an application for a passport. It might be interesting to see whether under our law we could sign an application for a passport on behalf of someone who was refusing to apply for one. That could be deemed to be a proper form at least for New Zealand purposes and therefore should be accepted by one of these six embassies that have taken the view that they will be difficult. I put that suggestion forward to the Minister because it might be something for this Government or a subsequent Government to take into account to try to avoid the type of problem we see here. 
Overall this issue is a clear indication that the Immigration Service is grossly overworked. With the 40000 to 60000-plus applications for immigration to New Zealand that it has it cannot do the job properly. That is a clear indictment on this Government and its policy of having 45000-plus immigrants coming to New Zealand plus another 75000 students. That puts pressure on the immigration division. Another 75000-plus are here on a temporary residence basis putting the total up to about 190000. In the year 2000 190000 people arrived in New Zealand for the first time. I feel terribly sorry for the Immigration Service which has to put up with the problems given to it by this Government. 
New Zealand First heard about this issue this morning and we agreed to this solution immediately. We look forward to this clause of the bill being given support although I should make it quite clear that as a whole we are opposing the immigration legislation of which the bill is part. That point should be made clear and I think it is going to be made clear by the other parties that also oppose the Immigration Amendment Bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party has not yet replied to the Minister of Immigration’s letter. The reason is the Minister’s letter is totally unreasonable. The situation we find ourselves in is the Minister’s letter reached me just before midday today. 
John Carter 
: Midday? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes at half past 11. We were having a caucus meeting. I got the letter. It is my understanding that it came to my office at about that time. I had commitments between then and 2 o’clock including a whole group of officials coming to see me about the State sector reform. Although the Minister’s letter appears to be reasonable and it states for example that she would allow me to be briefed by officials how on earth was that going to happen? 
One might say this is an open-and-shut case. Well is it? As the judge points out Parliament is very reluctant to put people in jail. Indeed the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained is a fundamental right that is recognised in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and before that in the Magna Carta. I say to the Minister that she is treating the House with contempt and I greatly resent it. I suspect that all parties in Parliament—perhaps I should not speak for the Greens—recognise that we have to have an immigration system and that we have to have a system whereby a person who is a judge says in his judgment which I am obliged to the Minister for sending to me that here is a person who is flouting New Zealand’s law. Indeed I notice that a second judge has described his case as “hopeless” and said that his application for substantive judicial review was “doomed to failure”. He claims not to have a passport and the judge doubts whether even that statement is true. We have learnt further that this person is undesirable in a number of ways including that he entered into a bigamous marriage—a very evil thing to do if a person does it just to get immigration. Just think of the damage he has done to that woman! 
In saying so yes obviously the House would like to patch up what appears to be a hole. But I point out to the House—and I have had only a few moments to look at the amendment—that this amendment actually appears to go a lot further than that. In fact the section 60(6) in clause 15A(3) states that basically anyone can be held in jail: “Unless the Judge considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the person’s release a Judge may not order the release of a person under subsection (5) if— ... (b) a direct or indirect reason for the person being unable to leave New Zealand is or was some action or inaction by the person occurring after the removal order was served.” That is what is required in order to fix this position but the Minister’s provision does not say just that; it also says that the judge may not order the release of a person under subsection (5) if “(a) the person is currently a refugee status claimant who claimed refugee status only after the removal order was served;”. 
I would like to know from the Minister why she is using this emergency to extend the provision to that situation. It occurred to me that a person in that situation might be a genuine refugee. Why would we hold in jail someone who is a genuine refugee? The Minister has not answered that question. We as a Parliament do not have a chance now to examine why the Minister and her officials have extended the provision in this way. The Minister in her speech to this House in no way indicated to us: “Oh by the way I want to extend this provision to cover another situation thathas just occurred to me.” I say to the House quite seriously that the Minister appears to me to be breaking—I do not know whether we could call it a convention. In my time in the House with regard to matters of this sort what normally happens is exactly as Mr McCully said. The Minister’s office rings up and says: “We’ve got a botch-up here. A man is flouting the law and the Iranian Embassy is refusing to issue a passport.”—which is noted in the court case as being very unusual and I agree with Mr McCully that we should indicate to the Iranian Embassy that the New Zealand Parliament is very unhappy with its action which does not appear to us to be a friendly one. But that is what normally happens. The Minister has given us no reason as to why she did not do that. 
In fact I found her letter to be very partisan and political. The only reason she gives for failing to give us time to consider this amendment properly is that she had not taken it to Cabinet. So what? I have been rung by Ministers before they have gone to Cabinet. I have been rung by Ministers before something has gone to caucus. I have been rung and told: “Richard we’ve got a real problem here. We need your assistance. Can I get the officials to come across and brief you?”. The Minister chose not to do those things. I want to make it clear to the Government that that is an arrogant attitude. It is not parliamentary and it is not satisfactory. The Minister thanks the National Party for not playing politics; well I say she is taking advantage of the National Party because the person who is playing politics is her. She is saying that the real reason she did not brief us was she wanted to take the issue to her own party caucus committee. That is not a reason not to brief other parliamentarians. I would have liked to have a briefing because I would have asked why the provision is being extended to include this extra category. It does not appear to be needed to get Mr Mohebbi out of the country. I say to the Minister that to spring on the House a provision to hold someone in jail with no possibility of consultation is not a proper way to pass legislation. 
I note the point made by the judge that the New Zealand Parliament since time immemorial—and the British Parliament—has been extremely reluctant to pass a law that entitles somebody to be held in jail indefinitely. I share that reluctance. I do not want to pass a resolution that is any greater than what is required to uphold the integrity of our immigration laws. I say to the Minister that her explanation so far still leaves me with a nagging doubt that she has decided to go a bit further than is required. It may be that this addition is necessary but it cannot be urgent. The extra additions are not required to be passed today. I say to the Minister that they should have been submitted properly and sent to a select committee which would allow members of the public to make submissions. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper should have been wide enough to handle just this individual’s situation. 
I think the Minister is taking advantage of us. I want to register my very very strong objection to the unparliamentary way that the Minister has gone about this proposal. I think we have been treated with contempt. I believe that we should have been consulted on this matter 2 weeks ago probably instead of a few hours ago when it was not possible for me because of my own commitments to have a briefing from officials which I would have taken if I had had the time. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper which proposes to allow for the ongoing detention of migrants who have been served with a removal order and subsequently detained. In the specific case that has driven this Supplementary Order Paper Mr Mohebbi has been denied refugee status and has been served with a removal order and detained in prison. He clearly wants to remain in New Zealand and is refusing to do anything or take any action to facilitate his removal. The circumstances that have led to this situation with Mr Mohebbi appear to be specific to the requirement of the Iranian Embassy. It appears from the High Court judgment of 7 August that this situation is unique but that it has exposed a lacuna in the law. As a result this Supplementary Order Paper has been proposed by the Government to remedy the situation. However the Supplementary Order Paper makes a significant change to the law that will deprive people of their rights and allow for unlimited ongoing detention. It also appears to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and possibly the Human Rights Act and other international conventions for the protection of migrants. 
The Greens are not prepared to support a Supplementary Order Paper that has these effects without allowing for intense public scrutiny through the select committee process and advice from experts in the area. We consider this to be an abuse of the process of this House. We have already had immigration legislation passed under urgency in this House that deprived people of their rights; we did not support that legislation either. This change should go to a select committee and not be passed into law without proper consideration. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party supports this Supplementary Order Paper which demonstrates to the public the Opposition outrage at the abuse of the parliamentary process and lack of respect to other political parties shown by this arrogant Labour Government. We will support this Supplementary Order Paper in the interests of our country to uphold the intention of the immigration legislation. 
I cannot help but reflect on the irony of the short speech given by the Green Party member. That type of speech was given by the Hon Lianne Dalziel when she was the Labour spokesperson on immigration in Opposition. I well remember that she took every opportunity to lecture National Government members and other parliamentarians about the uncaring attitude they showed to refugee claimants and detainees. She also defended those people saying that of course they would destroy all their papers before they landed in New Zealand. She defended those refugee claimants and certainly opposed legislation such as she has brought into the House this afternoon—which reminds me how much the “Maharey principle” has been practised by the Labour Government. 
But in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper we do want to register our strong protest and outrage at the total lack of consultation. For 3 weeks the Minister of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel sat on this issue and only bothered I presume to consult with political parties that are friendly to the Labour Government such as United Future or the Progressive party. This issue is so important and it affects the immigration integrity of New Zealand. The public would expect a responsible Government to ensure this legislation passed through this House to show respect for political Opposition parties such as National New Zealand First ACT and the Greens. We have demonstrated that we are reasonable in the interests of the country but the total lack of respect shown by the Labour Government to the Opposition parties demonstrates why we continue to have problems with legislation being rushed through this House and then amendments having to be done swiftly. 
The second issue I want to bring up during this debate is the abuse by the Labour Government of the parliamentary process. This bill which this Supplementary Order Paper is part of was introduced on 1 July and was considered under urgency together with the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) that was passed at the time. When this Immigration Amendment Bill was introduced we got a note from office of the Minister of Immigration that there would be a briefing at 4 p.m. When we turned up to the briefing the Minister went off to a press conference. Our questions could not be fully satisfied by the officials or the Associate Minister of Immigration. But half an hour later we were forced back into the House to debate the Immigration Amendment Bill. 
At the same time the other piece of immigration legislation was rushed through the House under urgency again because of the Minister’s incompetent leadership. The Immigration Service found itself facing a backlog of over 20000 immigration applications. Because of that rushed piece of legislation over 40000 people found their applications had lapsed with certain exceptions. Even today I continue to receive letters faxes and emails from those people who have been deprived of any reason. Their applications were accepted in good faith and the officials did not even bother to process them. 
This is not the first time we have seen this Minister not bothering to ensure that the Immigration Service is running properly effectively or efficiently; neither does she care about consulting other parties to make sure that amendments can be passed. I must also remind the public that this arrogant Labour Government has managed to conduct its affairs in such an appalling manner due to the unquestioning cooperation being given by United Future—a party that had championed itself as a party of reason and common sense and a party that wished to ensure that the proper process is observed in Parliament. 
United Future has in the last 2 months given its approval to the Government even though the Government has been abusing the parliamentary process. Of the few United Future supporters left I hope they will question their party’s mandate in what they have promised the public in regard to holding the Labour Government to proper procedures. 
I want to bring up my last point of highlighting the problem of this Labour Government in terms of adopting a culture of blame. Whenever there is something wrong or it has to correct something in a hurry the Government will refer to officials not telling it in time or making up stories. In this case the Minister actually blamed her own Cabinet—that it approved the Supplementary Order Paper only yesterday so therefore she could not consult the other parties. She also blamed the legislation itself for the fact that she had to introduce the Supplementary Order Paper. I want to warn the Government that the public are taking notice and know that this Labour Government no longer seems to want to take any responsibility for its actions. Whenever anything goes wrong it simply blames the officials the Opposition parties or other past events. I think it is about time the Labour Government stood up and took the blame for fiascos like today’surgent introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Immigration Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I hope you will allow ample time for debate of this legislation now also including the Supplementary Order Paper that the members have had little time to examine. I hope we will have time to raise that during this debate. During the last 2 months the Labour Government has brought in a series of Immigration Amendment Bills to such an extent that most people are confused about what these amendments are. So I have introduced two amendments to this title clause. First I suggest that we should insert the words “Immigration Amendment (Workload Management) Bill”. The reason I suggest that is that although the Minister introduced this Immigration Amendment Bill as a sweeping change saying that from now on we will have a new policy that migrants can be welcome in New Zealand only if they can contribute to New Zealand—of course we know that that was the intention of the immigration system for a long time—the interesting thing is that during the select committee stage the officials told us that the changes really were superficial. It really was only a change to give them additional tools—whenever they face a build-up of workload they can use this invitation to apply tools to reject the expressions of interest that accumulate in the pool and also by using a lapsing provision from time to time to invalidate the number of applications or expressions of interest in the immigration pool. 
I thought the Minister might not have given clear instruction to the official who told the select committee that this bill was really in substance to continue with the existing immigration points system but only that it will be less transparent and introduce additional tools to enable officials to lapse an application. It would be more appropriate to signal this bill’s title as the “Immigration Amendment (Workload Management) Bill”. At least it would be a bit more informative of the intention. 
I have also discovered this article in the  
Socialist Worker Monthly Review 
 that says: “The Labour Government’s new racist policy will see Asian immigrants on the current waiting list told they are not welcome in New Zealand.” The article went on to say: “These new rules will clearly advantage migrants from the US Britain and South Africa white Europeans. A fact admitted by immigration consultants.” 
So I have also submitted a second amendment to the title clause saying that the title of this bill should be the “Immigration Amendment (Asians Beware) Bill”. Potential Asian migrants should be made aware of the changes in this bill because they need to take great care before they incur a lot of time and expenditure in submitting a so-called expression of interest. Many submissions that we heard in the select committee including from the Human Rights Commission and the Auckland Law Society made it clear that they believed that this immigration legislation no matter how it was worded would have the practical impact that migrants from Asian countries or non-English-speaking backgrounds would be disadvantaged. I have also introduced this amendment to make sure this Immigration Amendment Bill’s intention is clear by inserting the words “Asians Beware”. 
The  
Socialist Worker Monthly Review  
also went on to say that migrants also would have a greater chance of acceptance if they could pre-arrange a job prior to arrival. Therefore according to a prominent immigration consultant David Cooper this requirement would again favour European applicants who fit into the workplace. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is unusual to take a call on the title debate simply because it is such a narrow debate but I will not sit in this House and allow that member to produce an amendment without a comment from me. The suggestion to insert the words “Asians Beware” is insulting and contemptible and that member does her people no good whatsoever by presenting this fictitious nasty piece of work in this House. 
Pansy Wong 
: It is in the  
Socialist Worker Monthly Review 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is interesting that the member uses the Socialist Worker magazine to promote her cause. I have not read the particular article that the member refers to but I want to tell this House that there is nothing in this Immigration Amendment Bill that in any way impacts on one particular group over another. This bill is all about changing a general skills points system that gave people residence in this country regardless of whether their skills were even needed in this country and regardless of whether they would ever get work in this country. I could table 100 articles for every one that that member has tabled showing the cases of despair from Asian people who have moved from their own countries to New Zealand believing that they have an opportunity and a future in this country. For goodness’ sake the Minister of Health has had to expend—I ask the Minister of Health to help me out—$11 million— 
Hon Annette King 
: $11.9 million. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —on a programme just to help a few of the immigrant doctors who came into this country from other countries under that member’s party’s policy that allowed those people to come in without any chance of ever working. This legislation is about making sure that skilled migration benefits skilled migrants benefits this country and it is insulting of that member to suggest anything else. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 My advice to the Minister in the chair is to have a nice cup of tea and a lie-down before she does herself an injury. It is going to be a long afternoon and she needs to compose herself. 
Hon Annette King 
: I think the member should take something to cheer him up. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Seeing the Minister of Health looking silly in the House always cheers me up. She would know full well that in the absence of some sensible decision-making by her the provisions contained in the bill will not do anything to stop medical practitioners coming into New Zealand being unable to work and “forced to drive taxis”—to use the expression advanced by the Minister in the chair. 
Hon Annette King 
: Fortunately we’ve fixed it. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: While the Minister of Health’s interjection is not germane to the title debate I will respond by saying that she will be under scrutiny in that area. She has dined out for a long time on the notion of inheriting somebody else’s problem. The clock has ticked well past the point where she can pretend that somebody else is responsible for the shortcomings in her portfolio. I have constituents who would like to work in the health system and are appropriately qualified to do so. I know that the inaction of that Minister has a lot more to do with those problems than any previous immigration policy. 
The bill before the Committee today the Immigration Amendment Bill—the principal Act being the Immigration Act—has very important implications for New Zealand. It covers an area where people make important decisions about their future believing that they will be dealing with a party that will behave honourably. The concerns expressed by my colleague Pansy Wong might not be concerns that the Minister will be enthralled to hear in the Chamber today. Nevertheless they are real concerns felt by real people making life decisions and believing that they are not being dealt with honourably by the party on the other side—namely the New Zealand Government and specifically the Minister of Immigration. I want to tell the Minister that this debate needs to be taken seriously. The scrutiny Opposition members will place upon her actions in relation to this bill and her subsequent actions as Minister—because this legislation will give her considerable power to make decisions—will focus particularly around whether the New Zealand Government is portraying itself as a party that does business honourably. 
In looking at the title it is important that members understand the historical context of this legislation. In many ways the contents of the bill have previously been in New Zealand law. The bill contains policies that in large measure New Zealand has seen in action during the 1980s. The powers provided by the bill are very substantially powers that have been in the hands of Ministers in the past and were found wanting. They depend in very large measure on the ability of Ministers and officials to behave honourably to read marketplaces well and to execute changes quickly and professionally. 
The reason that the previous legislation the Immigration Act was passed was that there was thought to be too much room for uncertainty and discretion in a system that depended upon Ministers and officials to make decisions. It was thought desirable that there should be greater clarity and certainty for parties whose applications were being considered by the Government. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this legislation which allows the continuation of the Government’s current policy of allowing about 45000 immigrants per annum into New Zealand under various residency policies. New Zealand is under great stress because of the high levels of immigrants entering this country under the policies currently set out by the Labour Government. 
The Government needs to take stock of the following issues that are affecting our country. The first is the effect on the country of the estimated $7954 per year it costs for a refugee to stay in New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It seems that members are going much wider than the title debate allows. This is one of those debates that is meant to be strictly controlled. If members wish to move off this clause we will deal with it and go into the substance of the bill. The member should restrict his debate to the title only please. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Reasons for opposing this legislation are that the number of new residency permits granted should be in the vicinity of 10000 per annum—not the figure set out in the Government’s policy and allowed to continue in terms of this legislation. 
Jill Pettis 
: You’re not talking about the title. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You carry on. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: I thank Mr Prebble. For example the Auckland District Law Society gave evidence that the immigration system cannot be trusted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member must stick strictly to the title of this bill and not wander outside it. The Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 require the Chair to stick strictly to that ruling. I have allowed a little bit of leeway both ways but we need to move on to the title only; otherwise we shall move into the bill itself. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We’ve had two wide speeches from the National Party. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Thank you Mr Prebble. Coming back to the title I point out that New Zealand First will oppose the title. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Just tell us why. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: OK. The reason we are opposing the title is the stress put on this country by a huge underground and fraudulent immigration industry in New Zealand an example of which is the fake English language certificate scam revealed in the  
Assignment 
 programme last year. There are many more. 
The Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing and the incoming Minister of Immigration Service found that the repercussions of the Government’s immigration policy were creating undue strain. Violent crime committed by Asians has risen 67 percent in the last 5 years compared with only 9 percent by Caucasians 9 percent by Maori and 5 percent by Pacific Islanders. Violent crimes committed by those born in China have risen by 297 percent in the last 5 years. Crimes of dishonesty by Asians have risen 167 percent in the last 5 years compared to a drop of 5.4 percent amongst Maori 4.8 percent amongst Caucasians and a 5 percent rise amongst Pacific Islanders. 
Extortion-type crimes committed by Asians in Auckland City have increased 760 percent in the last 3 years to the point where one Auckland judge asked whether it was “kidnap week”. Senior constables from around the country are saying that Asian crime is a huge problem. Top Chinese officials state that young Asians are getting hooked on crime in this country and still the Minister denies that there is a problem that needs to be addressed under this bill. 
The Maori population of course is under threat. Maori must be concerned about the current rate of immigration into the country. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Before I start to speak to the title I thank the Minister for allowing me a briefing from officials about the Supplementary Order Paper which we will get to later. As a result of that briefing the ACT party supports the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Taking the bill as a whole I believe that the Committee should seriously consider the amendment suggested by Pansy Wong. I wonder whether New Zealand First members have read the bill because one of the two speakers has to be wrong. Pansy Wong says this bill is directed at reducing the amount of Asian migration into the country and that is why she will vote against it but New Zealand First members say that they will vote against it because there are too many Asians in the country. One of the speakers has to be right or wrong. 
I do not know whether New Zealand First supports the amendment but reading the New Zealand First minority view to the committee one has to hand it to them. One of the reasons they will vote against the bill is that “the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner”. That is exactly what I thought Mr Peters has been advocating. Surely he has been saying that we have too many Asians in New Zealand. Here is a bill which he says—shock horror—could be used in a discriminatory manner. That is what the party wants it to do 
. 
I just come back to the question of whether they should be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment. 
Craig McNair 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member who was just speaking to this bill claims something that New Zealand First has never talked about and the New Zealand First leader has not talked about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I assure the member that I was at a meeting where he most certainly did that. 
However I want to come back to the bill itself and say that what it actually does is move away from a points system which was designed to be neutral and goes back to a system of using discretions. I have been in this Parliament long enough to remember that immigration system and the fact that it did not work. It has been abandoned by all the immigration nations. Canada New Zealand and Australia have all concluded that those methods do not work. I say that the Immigration Amendment Bill will have an impact on who comes to New Zealand. There is no doubt that it will discriminate against Asians who are attempting to migrate. 
I also take up the point made by Mr McCully that to move from one country to another is a huge thing. It is a very big commitment and people have put their lives on hold for years. Those people waiting on the list were given in effect an undertaking that because they had the number of points and had met the criteria they would be able to come. As a result of this bill those people can be simply wiped off—there is no way of getting around that. It is my view 
—[Interruption].  
That is why I am supporting the amendment. The people who will be wiped off—and I want the Minister to confirm this—will be predominantly Chinese. Over half of them— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No I never said that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I know the Minister has not. I am saying it. I want the Minister to get up and refute it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It is not true. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says from the chair that it is not true. Seeing that she is able to make that statement I would be very interested to know whether she will take another call and tell us what the ethnic make up is of the people who will be taken off the list. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not in the title debate dear. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is very nice of the Minister to call me “dear”. It will probably start rumours around the whole country. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s defamatory. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Some say it is defamatory but I prefer to take it in a different way. The question most certainly is relevant because without a clear statement from the Minister the ACT party intends to support the amendment moved by Pansy Wong. We think this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the campaigning of Mr Winston Peters and his party. We do not believe that the Government had any intention of introducing this bill prior to the great shock it had last election. We think that this bill has been designed for base party political reasons to try to shore up the Labour Party’s vote in some parts of New Zealand which is being carved off by New Zealand First. 
I note that New Zealand First is still voting against this bill but it is my view that this is a bill Mr Peters himself could have drafted without any difficulty. I think Mr Peters is in favour of the bill due to the fact that he thinks it is discriminatory and for that reason I am intending to vote against it. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on the title but after hearing some of the words from the Opposition I decided that I would. Perhaps we should call the bill the “United Future (A Breath of Fresh Air) Bill” because people in this nation have been waiting for a party such as United Future to arise in their midst and members will note that it is rising. The bill should be titled the “United Future (A Breath of Fresh Air) Bill” because it is refreshing for the people of New Zealand to have a party that can look at legislation as it comes through the House and decide whether it is best for the country. That is what we were elected to this Parliament for. We were elected to make decisions that would make a better New Zealand. 
What a name “United Future” is for a party that wants a better future for New Zealand and immigration will always be part of the build-up of New Zealand. We welcome people from all races into this nation but we have a culture and a set of standards. There will be different times and different seasons in our nation when we will need different types of skills and that is what this bill is all about—the “United Future (A Breath of Fresh Air) Bill”. I make the point that there are many people walking the streets of New Zealand—the man on the street and the woman on the street—who will welcome this bill because again we are building a great New Zealand with a united future. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking on the title I would like to question the member who has just resumed his seat. Mr Adams was a very very good rally driver. I even competed against him. But when it comes to understanding what he has just told this Committee he has missed it horribly. He has just told the Committee that this legislation will enable New Zealand to discriminate on the basis of culture. He told the Committee that we have a certain culture here and that we want people who fit that culture. 
That is the problem with the title of this bill—the Immigration Amendment Bill. It tells us nothing of what the legislation does. When we look at it we see that the heart of this legislation is the power it gives the Minister to issue an invitation to apply for residence. Clause 6 gives the Minister that power. That power in itself gives the Minister the power to discriminate and that is why the title is totally off course. It does not capture what this bill enables. 
One way of accurately capturing what the bill does would be to have the bill entitled the “Immigration Amendment (Invitation to Apply) Bill” because one of the fundamental things the bill does is set up a system enabling the Minister to invite people to apply for residence. That is one neutral title that would be possible but from listening to the submissions at the select committee I suggest a more appropriate title might be the “Immigration Amendment (Corruption) Bill” because several key players such as the Auckland District Law Society warned us that this legislation will lead to corruption. It gives the Minister such unfettered power and it gives her officials who are already under investigation for allegedly lying in unison huge power. 
My good colleague Pansy Wong has already suggested that the bill should be the “Immigration Amendment (Asians Beware) Bill”. Again that captures the huge concern of the Opposition which is what the United Future member who has just resumed his seat seems to overlook totally. With the best of intentions maybe one could make this system work but the problem is that in politics it never works that way. In politics and in Government if we run risks of discrimination or if we run risks of murky non-transparent systems we will get corruption. One of the reasons New Zealand is free of corruption is that we have transparent systems. But if we were to bring in this kind of measure—and we heard United Future talking about using this legislation to enable immigrants to better match our culture—we would see the very dangers of discrimination. That is why another possible title for this bill is “Immigration Amendment (Discrimination) Bill”. That is not being derogatory because it gives the Minister the power to discriminate. 
United Future should think very carefully—before it supports this legislation—about that issue because its members I believe are good Christian common-sense people. But how can good Christian people consider it acceptable to say that just because some prospective immigrant’s culture is different from ours—no matter what the immigrant’s skills are or how valuable a contribution he or she could make to New Zealand—that person should be discriminated against and not be invited to apply for residence? That is what was implied by the previous contribution from United Future. I want United Future members as Christian people to think about what they have just said to the Committee about that potential to discriminate—even on the basis of beliefs. There could be a Minister who was anti-Christian and who might discriminate against people if they were fundamentalists. This legislation enables people to be discriminated against for all kinds of reasons. I am not sure whether United Future really believes that that view is good for New Zealand and good for the decent society that we hope New Zealand should be. That is why the title of this bill is totally inadequate; it does not capture what this legislation will enable this Government to do. 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The first amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 1 is not allowed. 
Pansy Wong 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification as to why you rejected my amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The matter is very clear in Speaker’s ruling 15/2 in the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. The amendment does not objectively describe the contents of the bill in any way. It is wrong on another count too because it criticises the bill itself. I rule the amendment out and that is that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I will also put forward an amendment to this part of the bill. One of the constant criticisms that we heard from the submitters—who actually represent 90 percent of the submissions—who came to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee expressed concern that this bill if passed would damage the credibility of New Zealand’s reputation in terms of confidence and the certainty of our immigration system. I think this is very important and I particularly want United Future to consider it. United Future is a party that claims to be concerned about the interests of New Zealand and our standing in the international world so I want its members to consider and support this amendment to add a new subclause to clause 3: “(d) ensure the transparency and certainty of immigration policies to maintain the international credibility of the New Zealand immigration system.” 
I cannot imagine that any party or anybody would not accept an amendment for something that is very obvious. The immigration system is a very important integral part of the legislation of a country. Part of the concern about the immigration system undoubtedly is about the lack of transparency. When an immigration policy or the way it is being implemented shows a lack of transparency and a lack of integrity then undoubtedly the doors will be wide open to corruption. 
 One can imagine that before very long New Zealand will see a market price for obtaining letters of invitation for people to apply. As the Human Rights Commission stated to the select committee those letters of invitation to apply are unprecedented anywhere in the world. The commission did not know of anywhere else where that mechanism exists. 
The Immigration Service is already under a cloud because of the investigation into the “lie in unison” matter. What confidence can the public and potential applicants have when additional powers are awarded to the service so that it does not have to explain to potential applicants why their applications will not even be considered why they will not receive letters of invitation and why there will be no appeal? 
We were told during the select committee process that 67 percent of the appeals by applicants would succeed because of different technical interpretations between the Immigration Service and the applicant. So that is a very very serious issue facing New Zealand. Does Parliament want to pass legislation that will increase the possibility of our Immigration Service being tarnished by that lack of transparency so that the doors will open wide for corruption and corruptive practices? When that image is damaged internationally it will cost New Zealand dearly in terms of taking measures to regain the reputation of operating a transparent and credible immigration system in which both potential migrants and New Zealanders will know what criteria are being exercised. 
I hope that the various parties in the House will see this amendment as necessary to maintain the credibility of our country’s reputation if we are serious about attracting quality migrants. Those people would not want to apply under a system where they might spend lots of time and make financial commitments without knowing why they might not even be considered. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has indicated its opposition to the Immigration Amendment Bill. Part 1 covers clause 2 “Commencement” and clause 3 “Objects of Act”. There are no wider or more important provisions in any legislation than the objects of that legislation which are covered here in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of clause 3. I mention at this stage that about five New Zealand First members are hoping to take the call in this debate particularly on this part which is of vital importance to New Zealand First and to the people of New Zealand. 
I have put forward an amendment to clause 3(c). That paragraph states: “allow for Government residence policy that will better enable the selection and active recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution to New Zealand and settle well in New Zealand.” My amendment adds: “such migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” That was the promise we had from the Minister of Immigration when she introduced this bill. She told us then that the days of immigrants having to have points were being abolished and that she would match job vacancies with people coming to New Zealand. She has found of course that that policy of hers was doomed to failure even as she uttered the words because the Immigration Service is in an absolute mess. It has anywhere between 40000 and 80000 applications. It has written off 20000 applications about another 8000 are falling by the wayside and it has even lost some in its warehouse. 
As a matter of interest New Zealand First’s view is very close to that of the Council of Trade Unions. That is hardly surprising because we want to make sure as does the Council of Trade Unions that people who come to New Zealand actually have a proper job. We do not want people coming to New Zealand as doctors and ending up as taxi-drivers. This bill as it stands does not do anything about that. We want to make sure that as the Council of Trade Unions stated in 2.1(a) of its comments with regard to the objects of the legislation: “There needs to be a balance between immigration and investment in skill development training and pre-employment initiatives for those already here.” That is New Zealand First’s policy. The Council of Trade Unions is quoting New Zealand First policy. It goes on to state that it supports immigration policies that are consistent with workforce and skill development strategies rather than those that act as quick fixes to recruitment and retention problems. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr Rodney Hide is interjecting. He supports the Business New Zealand policy which is to bring into New Zealand as many people as possible bring down wages and allow the rich who support the ACT party to do very well from New Zealand having a low-wage policy. That is the ACT party’s policy. 
Darren Hughes 
: No one supports the ACT party. 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Darren Hughes the member for Otaki can smile but that is the policy he supports because the Labour Party supports the Business New Zealand policy of ripping off the workers. That is what it boils down to. 
We in New Zealand First have made it very clear that we want people to come to New Zealand but we want to make sure—[ 
Interruption 
] I have been called worse than that; it does not worry me; that is that member’s sense of humour. New Zealand First has made it quite clear that we support the Council of Trade Unions’ view that the issues of long-term labour supply are intrinsically linked to education and skill development fertility economic development—including workforce development—innovation technology diffusion wages and conditions and so forth. The support of the Council of Trade Unions for this legislation is very very qualified support. It is telling the Labour Party as are the workers of this country that the workers of this country are concerned that their jobs are on the line. Their jobs are going to overseas immigrants who provide cheap labour and that is supported by ACT and Business New Zealand. ACT Business New Zealand and the Labour Party can join together and support this bill but New Zealand First is concerned that workers’ rights are left out of this legislation. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about the workers? 
DAIL JONES 
: One never hears anyone from the Labour Party saying “What about the workers?” any more. Members of that party do not care two hoots about the workers of this country. As the Council of Trade Unions has indicated and as we have said in the 15 principles of New Zealand First the basic principles of the foundation of our party priority should be given to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill. First of all I would like to say to the Hon Lockwood Smith that New Zealand does indeed have a culture and one that I am proud of. People who immigrate to our country need to know that they need to fit in with it. 
Clause 3 states that the Act will provide the legislative framework to enable residence policy to be based on New Zealand’s needs rather than on an entitlement system. New Zealand does have needs. I am an employer. Currently I cannot get mechanics. Therefore we need an immigration policy that is based on what we currently need in the country. That is just common sense. 
Rodney Hide 
: Conflict of interest. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I ask Mr Hide whether we want workers and the economy to prosper. Do we want workers to be able to work here? I thought that was ACT party policy. The first thing to note is that unlike other portfolio areas that are founded on fairly prescriptive legislation the real substance of immigration policy is contained in the standard operating procedures and criteria that are collected in a manual and used by immigration officers while assessing applications. This bill facilitates that process rather than spelling out what immigration policy will be and that is why it may be difficult for some to understand the impact of this legislation. 
It puzzles me that New Zealand First would vote against the bill because as clause 3 states it enhances the Immigration Act as a mechanism by which residence policy can be facilitated. So if there is a miracle—and I do happen to believe in miracles—and New Zealand First is ever in a position once again to sit on the Treasury benches and control immigration policy this measure would assist it to introduce its policy. So why on earth would those members vote against it? Never mind—politics is a strange business. 
The objects clause also explains that the idea behind the bill is to allow the Government to get smarter about whom it selects as residents. If one looks at New Zealand First policy from the last election it becomes quite clear that it should be supporting this bill. Maybe the promises made at election time do not mean anything. The New Zealand First policy stated: “New Zealand First will give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” That is exactly the kind of policy this bill facilitates. New Zealand First is clearly betraying all those misguided people who voted for it at the last election by not supporting this bill. 
What is its excuse? New Zealand First stated in the select committee report that this bill does not reduce the overall number of immigrants into this country. That is a completely misleading defence given that that is quite outside the intended scope of the bill. New Zealand First is trying to cover the fact that the Government is doing something about immigration with the help of United Future. [ 
Interruption 
] Can we fix it? Yes we have. This was one of Winston Peters’ three fingers in the last campaign; by not supporting this bill New Zealand First is giving two fingers to the voters. The object of the bill is not to reduce the overall number of people who gain residence here but essentially to add a new filter to the application process to enable the selection and recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution to New Zealand. Although the Government is inviting people to apply only the number of applications provided for in the New Zealand immigration programme will be considered. 
The Government does need to do a much better job at communicating the objectives of the bill to the public and prospective applicants. Reading through the select committee report I found it interesting to note the number of concerns about the bill put forward by submitters but the number of amendments that emerged as a result was quite modest. This is because those concerns were effectively addressed as one would realise if one understood the objects of this bill and the context of immigration policy. But I was quite happy to see that the committee also recognised the need to keep applicants informed. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I will speak briefly to Part 1. I am looking at the amendment in Pansy Wong’s name. I think she has made some good points. If we can accommodate those then we certainly will attempt to do so. 
I think it is important for people to realise that the bill and the objects in clause 3 are about explaining what is being replaced with what. The general skills category which was originally introduced in 1991 is being replaced with a new skilled migrant category. This bill facilitates that particular change. It does change the way we do things. Instead of the process starting off with an application that leads to absolute entitlement to residence in our country we are moving away from entitlement to an “invitation to apply” situation based on people’s expressions of interest that is run on a points system. To put it bluntly this is the best of both worlds. This is the best of what preceded the 1991 changes and indeed the 1991 skills category as it was known at the time—subsequently it was changed to the general skills category. A points system that is very transparent and open will be the precursor to the invitation to apply. It will not be based on an individual officer’s discretion as to the particular place that the individual came from where that person was born or his or her religious background—or any of the nonsense we have heard from the other side. That was made very clear at the select committee. 
The reason we are establishing this legislative framework to move away from the entitlement model is that all through the 1990s and indeed still today people have moved here under the skills category who can never be employed in New Zealand in the field of expertise in which they have qualifications or experience. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Well change the points system. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member interjects to say that the Government of the day changed the rule. Yes it is true. In 1991 the skills category came into effect. Four years later in 1995 the requirement that individuals before they got their immigration points be registered with the bodies they are required to be registered with in order to practise in New Zealand was finally implemented but it did not help a single skilled migrant who did not need registration in law but needed it in practice. 
So I am a little bit sick and tired of people telling only half the story. Literally thousands of people in this country believed that New Zealand had something to offer them. They sold up their homes they moved their families from one side of the world to the other and today they are disappointed and disgusted with the decision they made because they believed that New Zealand wanted them needed them and had something to offer them when we had nothing to offer them when they arrived in this country. The 1990s were a very sad and sorry time in immigration policy in this country. Those who were responsible for immigration policy during the 1990s should look to themselves before making criticism of a policy that is designed to ensure that New Zealand’s interests are paramount. In determining that New Zealand’s interests are paramount we are ensuring that the benefit will be shared with the skilled migrants because the skilled migrants will be coming to New Zealand because we need them here. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Listening to the early part of the discussion on Part 1 I was intrigued to see that Mr Adams on behalf of United Future was very quick to put up his hand and claim some responsibility jointly with the Minister of Immigration for this legislation. But I noted he was silent on the question I had asked earlier which was whether his party was one of the Government caucuses referred to in the letter from the Minister that sought acquiescence in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 131 which will come before the Committee in relation to Part 2. Maybe next time Mr Adams gets to his feet he will do the Committee the courtesy of giving it an honest answer to a fair question. He stood up and claimed credit then in trying to work out what he was taking credit for fumbled his way through a bunch of research unit notes which he clearly had not read before and of which he had no understanding. 
I say to Mr Adams that next time he decides to address the Committee we would be obliged to him if he was to answer the perfectly legitimate question that I asked him which was whether the United Future caucus was one of the caucuses that the Minister has told other leaders she consulted and got approval from in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that inserts a new clause 15A. It is a perfectly fair question. Was he awake in the caucus meeting this morning? He does not even know whether he was there let alone whether he was awake. It looks rather good does it not? 
What I want to say in relation to Part 1 is that—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has decided to come back into the Chamber having had Parliament retrospectively validate his presence here. If the member wants to take a call he can take a call but it would be the first time he made any sort of contribution in the Chamber to a subject of this complexity. 
 Part 1 is a very important part of this bill because clause 3 spells out some of the objects of this legislation. The piece that I want to refer to in particular with approval is the statement that “… New Zealand’s interests are paramount as opposed to the present entitlement model;”. I am not sure what “entitlement model” actually means; I have heard the Minister use the expression a few times and I do not have a particularly partisan view about it. I actually like to see the statement that New Zealand’s interests are paramount and the basis of our immigration policy. I certainly approve of that and indeed I advocated something similar in a discussion paper that I circulated within my own party a little while ago so I do not have any problem with it. But paragraph (b) of clause 3 states: “provide greater control over and more effective management of the quality and number of applications for residence visas and residence permits;” and that is the bit I have some questions about. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: He needs an empty glass of water not a full one. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I need someone to taste this before I am prepared to drink it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Turn it into wine. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I wonder whether Mr Hide might like to nominate a food taster for me. 
I think the key questions in relation to this bill can be summed up by reference to paragraph (b) of clause 3. The question one has to ask is who will have greater control over and exercise more effective management of the quality and number of applications for residence visas and residence permits. To me that seems to go to the very heart of this legislation. The concern I have about it in relation to all the discussions I have heard—and I was not a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but I have read some of the submissions that were made—is that there are concerns abroad that there will be capricious decision-making or at least decision making that is less than even-handed if we have a system that is less transparent and less predictable than the current points model. I say to the Minister that that is a legitimate concern. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak on Part 1 of the bill because I was kind of staggered when I heard the United Future spokesperson Paul Adams ask the New Zealand First Party why we are not voting for this bill. 
First of all I think the fact that United Future is voting for the bill shows why we are voting against it. In the election campaign I opened up the newspaper to find Peter Dunne talking about his immigration policy. He said that United Future wanted 60000-plus immigrants per year. That is obviously why United Future is voting for this bill. We believe that it does absolutely nothing to change the regime to change the ad hoc policy-making implemented by this Government and that is the reason we are voting against Part 1. [ 
Interruption 
] Well where there is a will there is a way and there is no will over there. Why would a party that wants 60000-plus immigrants a year not vote for a policy like this? It is very obvious to us in New Zealand First that this bill is just smoke and mirrors. 
Part 1 which deals with the commencement and the objects of this legislation does nothing whatsoever to increase the fortunes of this nation. When I looked through this part of the bill it became very apparent to me that this legislation will allow for continuing high levels of immigration. It does nothing to help the average young Kiwi couple who are chasing the most basic of Kiwi dreams like buying a home. I will be in that situation in a few months when I get married. I was looking at the  
Sunday-Star Times  
on Sunday and I found an article on page 8 entitled “First-home dreams built on sand” that I want quickly to bring to the attention of the Committee. The article says exactly what the problem is in this country. Once the commencement of this bill takes place it will do nothing for people like Jude Davies and Tim Dunning who are staying with Dunning’s parents as he and Davies save for a deposit on a Wellington house. The article states: “You can spot them at house auctions: clean-cut young couples happy in love and ready to set up home together. They stand at the front nervous but excited clutching in one hand the letter from their bank pre-approving a loan of up to $350000 maybe a little more. They are tense avoiding any little nod or wink that might be wrongly interpreted as a bid. They miss the first bid—a seasoned bidder gets in first—but maybe the young bloke raises his hand for the second bid. You can see them walking away afterwards disappointed bewildered. The bidding quickly moved out of their reach. … The world should be their oyster”—at this time in life for them—“yet they cannot afford to fulfil the most basic of Kiwi dreams: buying a home.” 
All that this Government is doing with its immigration policy is making it harder and harder for couples like Tim Dunning and Jude Davies to buy a house to start a life together and to pursue the most basic of dreams. As I said that problem is a direct result of the Government’s immigration policy. Instead of having a policy like that New Zealand First suggests we should have something a little more creative like export policies that provide tax abatement like concession policies to ensure that viable exporting opportunities and innovation are not lost. Contrary to the objects of this Act in clause 3 the bill will not help the young mechanics who were talked about earlier. There are plenty of young guys whom I have met when I have gone to get my car fixed and so on who would just love to be able to become a mechanic. There is no skills shortage as far as that is concerned. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 1 of this bill consists of just two clauses with the first being the commencement clause. There is nothing unusual about the wording in that clause although it might be useful to amend it so that instead of the bill coming into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent it could come into force 3 years after the date on which it receives the royal assent because that would enable a future Government to amend this before it embarrasses our country. 
The main aspect of Part 1 is obviously clause 3 “Objects of Act”. It is fascinating to look at what is spelt out in clause 3. Paragraph (a) states: “establish a legislative framework”—and there is nothing wrong with that—“particularly in respect of Government residence policy where New Zealand’s interests are paramount as opposed to the present entitlement model;”. It will not be immediately clear to people as to what that means. We can maybe get some insight into what that means from associated legislation such as the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) which was passed by this Government not so long ago. In managing our immigration policies in this country that legislation lapsed the applications of some thousands of applicants for residence. Do members know what the one overwhelming characteristic was of those applicants whose applications were lapsed? They were all people who had largely met the points requirements. They were educated and they had employment prospects in this country. The one characteristic that was common to most of the people whose applications were lapsed is that they were from India. 
 That gives us some hint of what this Government is about. It talks about putting New Zealand first. Clause 3 states that New Zealand’s interests are paramount as distinct from an entitlement model. What we have seen so far from this Government is that its notion of“New Zealand’s interests” seems to discriminate against people such as those from India because largely it was people from India who had their applications lapsed. It concerns the Opposition that the objectives spelt out in clause 3 provide for a system that can discriminate. 
When the Minister spoke a moment ago she said the problem with the entitlement model—as she refers to it—is that it enables people who are not appropriately qualified to come to New Zealand. The answer to that problem is to change the rules. The rules should be transparent. The points system should be changed. More points should be given for the kinds of skills that are needed in New Zealand. We do not need to put in place an opaque—potentially corrupt—system to get the kinds of persons we want as successful immigrants. We should change the points system. We should give more points to people who have job offers or to people who have the kinds of skills that New Zealand needs. But clause 3 which spells out the objects of the Act establishes a two-tier system that enables the Minister to discriminate. There is no need for it. We can achieve the outcome being sought. I accept that the outcome being sought—to better match immigrant skills with New Zealand’s requirements—is a perfectly fine one but we do not need the two-tier system spelt out in clause 3 to achieve that. 
We would achieve that outcome much more simply if we made changes to the points system. Points should be awarded in such a way that there is a clear entitlement system and the entitlement should be based on skills that better match New Zealand’s requirements. There is no need to run the risks. In terms of clause 3(c) how on earth will the Government decide the labour market requirements and the detail necessary to make this system work? The Minister should explain to us how clause 3(c) would work. How will the Government select and actively recruit migrants? That is a huge change from the current system. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very important issue for New Zealand First and I do appreciate being given the call. The point made by the Hon Lockwood Smith is very apt for the amendment New Zealand First has put before the Committee. We have made it clear that in so far as clause 3(c) is concerned we should add the words: “Such migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” To some extent that is what we all thought the Minister was saying when she introduced the bill in the dead of night under urgency many weeks ago—that is that Labour was changing the legislation so that jobs for immigrants would be matched to jobs available in New Zealand. But of course that is not what is happening. 
Labour has an obsession with having 45000 or more people coming into New Zealand every year and it wants to increase the population of New Zealand willy-nilly. For example last year 190000 people in total including international students were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 2002. We have quoted that figure before from the geography magazine of Waikato University. It was put to the Minister at the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration on the immigration estimates. She refused to recognise the figure initially but when we put it to her again she admitted that yes that statement from the geography magazine was correct. That is 190000 people including international students were approved for permanent and temporary residence with 52800 in the immigration category 73000 by student visas and permits and the balance in the temporary residence category. 
How can New Zealand manage 190000 people in a year? Mostly they are in Auckland which is an area that is growing. In the last 10 years Auckland grew by 200000 people. As a matter of interest that number was the total population of Auckland in 1929. Every 10 years Auckland is growing by 200000 which is more than the population of most of the other cities in New Zealand. If Auckland does that every 10 years it is no wonder we have problems in Auckland. 
I am pleased that Mr Adams repeated New Zealand First’s immigration policy. I had already mentioned it in my speech but he read it out again in the speech notes provided to him by his research unit. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Labour Party research unit! 
DAIL JONES 
: Perhaps it was the Labour Party research unit. He will read anything— 
Rodney Hide 
: As long as it comes from Labour. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes as long as it comes from Labour. We made it clear in our election policy that we would cut immigration approval to 10000 immigrants a year. 
We also said we would increase penalties for breaches of immigration laws. What will happen to this bloke Mohebbi or whoever who is involved in this legislation we are rushing through the Committee tonight? He will just get sent back to Iran. He has committed bigamy which is a breach of our law but what will we do to him? We will just send him back home. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s Labour Party policy. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes it is Labour Party policy. He has had a good 6 or 7 years in New Zealand and now we will send him back home. 
We said we would have a 3-year probation for immigrants during which lawbreakers would be deported and there would be pre-arrival health screening including screening for HIV. We see from the clause about the objects of this bill that nothing like that is covered to ensure proper health screenings for people who come to New Zealand. We have tuberculosis here now on a big scale. In question time today the Prime Minister seemed to know what the figures were in 1991 but she could not tell us what the figures are today after 4 years of her administration. That was another very convenient lapse of memory. 
We have made it clear we believe that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has some very good ideas in this area. I was interested in its quotation from the  
Population and Sustainable Development 2003 
 report. The council left out the first few words of this quotation but I will put them in. It is a very good quotation: “In terms of populations the impacts of fundamentals such as lifestyle wages opportunities and safety will outlast any artificial incentives that may be provided to attract migrants or influence New Zealanders to stay or return.” What was not read out was: “There is the chance of a downward spiral if New Zealand can’t get the right mix to attract retain regain and utilise skilled people.” 
We in New Zealand First believe there will be a downward spiral with this Government’s policy because it is a slap-happy haphazard policy that is trying to bring in 45000-plus people. Last year the figure was 190000 people. We say that we have to link the job with the immigrant. We cannot just bring in 45000 people and hope they will have jobs. That is all the Labour Party’s policy is and it intends to do that every year. Every year time and time again Labour will bring in another 45000 people—mainly into Auckland—on top of everybody else. New Zealand has never been able to sustain that type of immigration. On a per capita basis there would not be any other country in the world that could do that type of thing. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 3(a) be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “model;” the words “while still providing transparency and certainty of residence policy to maintain the international credibility of New Zealand’s immigration system;”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 3(c) be agreed to: 
to add after the words “in New Zealand” the words “; such migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 103 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to add new paragraph (d) to clause 3 is out of order. It is inconsistent with the previous amendment that was agreed to. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance on how an amendment can be out of order that seeks to ensure transparency and certainty of immigration policies in order to maintain the international credibility of New Zealand’s immigration system. It is rather odd because if that amendment is out of order it is being argued that our system should not be transparent should have no certainty and should have no international credibility. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Perhaps it would assist with clarity if I tell the Committee that we did try to work with the member who was moving the amendment to have it included as part of clause 3(a) but because the member could not agree to that change I decided that it was important to follow up on the points. Although I could not agree to the stand-alone paragraph (d) I actually moved it in my name. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of the bill to use a colloquial expression and it worries us hugely. I keep stressing to the Minister that I can accept the logic of what the Government is trying to do. As I understand it it is that we need somehow to better match the skills that immigrants bring to this country with the skills needs of our country. We have no argument with that. I accept that in the past immigration policy has not achieved that as well as it should have. We all know that there are too many doctors driving taxis. We accept that but we should be moving to a better policy. There is no question about it. But the problem with what is provided for in Part 2 is twofold in my view. 
The first problem is that the Government is putting in place a two-tiered system that is inevitably going to delay decision making. The two tiers are firstly that under clause 9 people who wish to come to New Zealand are invited to express an interest in residence in New Zealand. The Minister is given the unfettered right under section 13E inserted by clause 9 to decide which of those people who have expressed an interest in having residence in New Zealand will be allowed to apply for residence. They could sit on that list of expressions of interest for months while the Minister decides which of those people will be invited to apply for residence. 
After they apply for residence there is then a further decision to be made. The decision then has to be made whether they will be given residence. That is the second tier of the whole process. Submissioners to the select committee were concerned about the length of time this whole process could take. I know that the Minister will get to her feet if she is interested in the debate to say that there will be mechanisms to make sure it does not take too long. But we know all too well that it is going to be quite a lengthy process. 
People will have made the huge decision to seek to come to New Zealand. It is a huge decision a very courageous decision that all our forebears made in previous times in the history of our country. We believe that it is not wise to have to go through that two-tier process. But there is a worse problem. The very nature of this process gives the Minister and her officials so much power to choose who can even apply for residence. Almost inevitably all those who came to the select committee to make submissions on the bill expressed a concern that despite the best intentions this process will almost inevitably lead to corruption. 
We know that under clause 7 the Government will be putting out its residence policy. But the danger remains that when we give absolute discretion when the Minister chooses not to invite someone to apply for residence there is no appeal. No one can say: “Hang on we think it’s not consistent with the Government’s residence policy that our expression of interest should have been turned down by the Minister because we feel she has not invited us because we are Indian or Asian or Chinese. We feel that that’s why we have not been invited to apply.” They have no chance to appeal that decision with anyone. That is why so many people are concerned about the potential for discrimination; the potential for corruption. 
I am not accusing this Minister of being racist. I would not dare accuse this Minister of being corrupt. But despite the best intentions we have legislation like this. In other jurisdictions not everyone sets out to be corrupt. Some do but not all. When we have legislation that can lead to a slippery path where a Minister can make a decision about two people whom we could invite to applyfor residence here and one is Asian and one is not there is the risk that the person who is not Asian might be selected. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I want to begin my contribution to this part of the debate on Part 2 by quoting one little section to the Committee: “ (a) No person is entitled to a residence permit as of right; and (b) Any question whether or not—(i) to grant a resident permit to any person … is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or subject to any special direction given under this Act and to section 13C of this Act of the appropriate immigration officer.” That is the existing law. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did you call it “entitlement” in this bill? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Because it has become an entitlement through the operation of exactly the protection that is offered by Government residence policy. Government residence policy is what the Residence Appeal Authority has to ensure is being applied in a case being decided by an individual immigration officer by way of delegation. That is the way the law is currently structured. What has happened is that it has got out of kilter with the way the law was intended to be structured. We have ended up with a right to residence based on an individual meeting a set of points based on qualifications skills and experience that may not match New Zealand’s needs. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Change the points system. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No but this is the point that I want to make to the member. I hope we do have this interchange in the course of this debate because this is the most important part of the bill. What I think people do not realise is that the numbers are currently being controlled under the New Zealand immigration programme by the number of points that one has to obtain or draw together in order to qualify for residence under the general skills category. In my time as Minister those points have risen from 24 points to 29 points. The reason they have risen so significantly in a relatively short period is that there has been an increased interest in people moving to New Zealand under this particular category. 
The points were actually too low at 24 points. I accept that. I held the points at 24 so I accept that I made a mistake in doing so and that is why we ended up with a backlog. It does mean that we have a significant number of people who have had applications lodged within a system that did not cater for the change in the policy that the Government wanted to introduce. So this means that there will be fewer delays not more delays; there will be more certainty and there will be no ministerial unfettered right to decide because Government residence policy will determine the factors that will be taken into account. 
I can assure the member that when people lodge their expressions of interest they will do so on a points-based system. The only difference between the current points system and the new proposed points-based system—and the details are still being worked out but they will be known in advance of the skilled migrant category coming into effect—is that the new proposed points-based system will have additional points for meeting New Zealand’s needs over and above the pre-existing general skills category. So there will be additional points for people having qualifications and experience in the areas of skill shortage within New Zealand. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You can do that now. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No there is a reason we cannot. The second thing is that it will have additional points if people have job offers in those areas. It will have additional points for job offers that are relevant to qualifications and experience. But the job offers that are currently there now that are not relevant to qualifications or experience will go. They will not get any extra points because they have been incredibly unhelpful in ensuring that people are able to take up their previous areas of occupational skill. 
There will also be extra points for people who get job offers outside Auckland. The point that I have been making is that a lot of people who have been making some criticism around us moving away from a transparent and open system really have not looked at the detail of what is being proposed and that is a points-based system for the expressions of interest. People will register their expression of interest for a very low fee. At the end of say a quarterly assessment those who have been selected will be invited to apply for residence—that is those who score the most points. The rest will be lapsed at the end of that 3-month period if that is the period that we determine. So people will not be sitting in a pool for ever. They will know within a period of 3 to 4 months whether they will be invited to apply for residence. 
Once they are invited to apply for residence then it is pretty sure that unless there is something particularly wrong—for instance they have attempted to defraud the system with false documentation or whatever—they will have a reasonably good chance of gaining residence. In fact the sorts of statistics that we have been working off are around the general skills statistics. I think about 10 percent are declined residence and some of those are in fact allowed to have their applications reconsidered as a result of the Residence Appeal Authority. 
But there will be two streams of people who will fall off this residence application. There are those who have job offers in New Zealand who have already proven that they can settle in New Zealand who did their university degree here and who have studied here for a couple of years—they are people who already know themselves what they are coming to what to expect and they have already demonstrated that they can settle in this country. 
In the other group are people who do not have job offers who have not got their qualifications here in New Zealand or who have not worked here for a couple of years. Their situation can be managed through a work-to-residence option which means that there is a residence permit at the end of it but it does mean that they carry the risk of failure of not being able to get a job in their area or expertise or qualification. 
So in fact this system is much more geared towards those whom New Zealand needs to meet its skill shortages. It is aimed precisely ensuring that migrants who come to New Zealand under the skilled migrant category—and this is only the skilled migrant category that it applies to at the moment; maybe in the future we will look at expanding it to other areas but not at this stage—can be selected to meet New Zealand’s need. 
So the system itself will be much quicker. There will be no delays such as we have at the moment and there will be no chance of people waiting 1 year 2 years or 3 years which has been the case not just under this Government but under previous Governments as well. I think people should read the histories of their own party’s performance in this area of immigration before being so quick to criticise others. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 There is no doubt about New Zealand First’s history with regard to immigration. When New Zealand First came into office the immigration figures were coming down and down. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You did nothing. 
DAIL JONES 
: I checked the figures myself and they were coming down and down. There is no doubt about it. I was in practice in Auckland then and one could see around Auckland that young people were able to buy their homes because there was not the pressure on the housing market. Parents could get young people into a school because there was not the pressure on education and people could get into a hospital—[ 
Interruption 
] I say for the benefit of the member for Whanganui that women in Auckland cannot even have a baby without walking into the maternity ward and being told to be out in 2 hours which is what happened to a pregnant woman in Auckland within only the last few days. She went into North Shore Hospital and was told that she could be there for only 2 hours to have her baby and then leave. 
Under New Zealand First there was a good health system a good education system and one could buy a house—something that a young person cannot do today. Only the speculators are profiting by this Labour Party policy—once again as usual. The Labour Party has always done this when it has come into office. I remember that it was the same in 1972 to 1975 and it is the same now. Property prices are soaring under this Labour Party. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Rubbish! 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not rubbish. It is happening in Ponsonby all the time. A dreadful little place that 2 years ago was worth $310000 is now worth $600000. Is that not speculation? Judith Tizard would not have the faintest idea about what is happening in Auckland and she is supposed to be the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. 
New Zealand First is opposed to this Labour Party policy which has made no change whatsoever to immigration numbers. The Minister of Immigration is like a magician. She tries to fiddle her particulars but in actual fact there is no change. We are wasting our time putting this legislation through. It will not improve anything in so far as a young person trying to buy a house or to get to a school is concerned. The Minister laughs. OK it might be all right in Christchurch but it is not like that in Auckland. Labour members can laugh but it is not like that in Auckland. This is what members who live in Auckland and serve the Auckland electoral system and the constituents in the Auckland area have to put up with. To put an end to the Minister’s story about how long applications will take Access Immigration New Zealand has indicated that applications will have at least a 12-month delay. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAIL JONES 
: Before the dinner break one of the interjections I received from the Minister of Immigration was a criticism of the figures when New Zealand First was involved in the Government. So I got out those figures because she gave the clear impression that immigration figures had increased during that time. I go back to 1993—and these figures were compiled by David Williams of the Parliamentary Library. They show that in 1993 permanent and long-term arrivals were 49562. The net figure came to 6848. In 1996—I am covering election years—there were 80288 permanent and long-term arrivals and the net figure was 29832. So the National Government had increased those figures from 49000 to 80000 during its 3 years in office. From 1996 to 1999 which included 2 of the 3 years of New Zealand First the figures went from 80288 down to 56580 and we had net permanent and long-term arrivals of minus 10199. So when we say we will get immigration down we do mean it. We will take action to do it. Of course again by the year 2002 the figure had gone up to 88365 under the Labour administration. 
One of the interesting things about the Waikato University paper was that it showed there seemed to be a 3-year cyclical way of looking at immigration. Certain parties want immigration figures to be high just before an election and other parties want them to be low because of their particular policies. New Zealand First is unabashed about the fact that we want New Zealand to be primarily for New Zealanders. We want a certain number of skilled people from overseas and we do not want the flood that comes in under the National Party or the tremendous flood that comes in under the Labour Party. 
Jill Pettis 
: What flood did that member come in on? 
DAIL JONES 
: I came in possibly on Noah’s flood according to some of the members of this House—I have been here as long as that. 
As far as the policies are concerned the Minister is absolutely wrong yet again in trying to suggest that New Zealand First’s figures do not somehow meet its policies when it is in Government. We believe in New Zealand for New Zealanders. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 which is the guts of the bill I guess. I make a couple of comments to Mr Dail Jones of the New Zealand First party. What he is really saying to the Committee—and I guess there is some truth to this—is that if we had New Zealand First as the Government this country would not be very attractive for people to come to. If we look further at this issue we see that under New Zealand First some of our best and brightest fled this country and I have no doubt that if Mr Peters was in charge they would be tempted to flee again. 
Jill Pettis 
: I don’t often agree with the member but he’s absolutely right. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Thank you. It does not happen often that the member agrees with me. The problem I have with this part is that on the one hand the Minister says we are going to have a points system and on the other hand she says we are not. When we look at the points system we see some of the dilemmas the Government has. It has a large number of migrants coming into New Zealand so it has raised the points required. The result is people get more and more points—for example for having higher and higher academic qualifications—and we discover that only nuclear scientists can qualify. The trouble is we are not very strong on nuclear physics in this country. I am exaggerating only slightly. We then discover as we go around the country and talk—as ACT of course does—to business people that there are critical shortages in that sector. I say to the Minster that interestingly enough—given she says the Government is going to move in that respect—we have a critical shortage of truck drivers. 
Jill Pettis 
: We need 4000 truck drivers. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member is agreeing with me again. That is a bit of a worry! She has just said we need 4000 truck drivers. When I look at this bill I start to wonder about the arguments the Minster is putting forward. Does that mean we will have 4000 truck drivers arriving? If a person is a nuclear scientist should that person put down “truck driver” as his or her desired occupation? Should the person come forward with a job offer from say “Bay of Plenty Trucking”—if there is such a company—and say under the Minister’s theory: “Here I am. I’ve got high points. I’ve got a job offer which I got while I was overseas to be a truck driver.”? That is part of the problem. 
The second part of the problem—and I think this point illustrates it—is that Parliament moved away from this sort of system for the reason that consultants whom the Minister so dislikes will reshape their policies to fit whatever the Minister does. So if she suddenly says that people need a job offer the consultants will produce job offers. If she says that people will have to live in Invercargill they will suddenly claim they are going to live in Invercargill. What are we going to do then? Are we going to deport them if they decide that Invercargill winters are too cold? Those sorts of policies completely discredited the previous immigration system. I realise there are now very few members left in the House who were actually here when we had that previous discredited method. But that point illustrates the nature of human beings. 
When the witnesses appeared before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—and my party was not a member so I am relying just on the report back—it appears that those who know about these things said to the Government: “If you’re worried about the integrity of the present system”—and New Zealand First clearly is—“it’s nothing compared with the concerns you’re going to have when you have wide discretions available in an area like immigration.” I think that all members of the House accept there are possibilities and ways in which our present immigration system can be improved and I guess that if we are frank about it we will say that immigration by its nature is always going to be arbitrary. When MPs meet people coming into this country we see they are hard-working and diligent. Some migrants want to come and clearly they would make good citizens but we may find they are one point short. The next person who comes in to see us might be asking for permission to double dip the social welfare system—but that person is a New Zealand citizen. The idea that all New Zealand citizens are wonderful and that everybody wanting to immigrate to this country is a plague is nonsense. One sees those instances in one’s own electorate clinics. 
What I do not see in this bill though is a system that looks as though it will be robust enough so that we know it will be a fair system and that people who apply to New Zealand will have fair rules applied to them. What I do see though is a panic reaction to the sorts of speeches that New Zealand First members make on this subject. What I think we are seeing is a method whereby the Minister of Immigration can do exactly what Mr Dail Jones seems to be advocating—that is every time there is an election year depending on which way the polls are going one decreases or increases the immigration numbers only to ignore them completely afterwards. Surely we should be seeking as a Parliament to find out what rules we want and what guidelines we want. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I along with Mr Prebble am one of those few members who are able to remember how immigration used to operate when we had a system of the sort that is proposed by this bill and specifically Part 2. I think it is worth the Committee just reminding itself of how we got here. We have this bill because the Minister had far too many applications in the system and the system could not cope any longer. The reason we have too many applications in the system is that the Minister did not take any notice of all the warning signs. Under the points system—which as Mr Prebble has reminded us is a lot more transparent than the old system—there is a computer formula that says to the Minister that when a certain number of applications with certain criteria come in then that is the time to increase the number of points. So for many months that system was automatically saying to the Minister: “The current points number is 24 and you need to lift it to 25.” That is what the system was saying and the Minister overrode that system. 
So the applications kept pouring in. Well that was a big surprise! So all of a sudden the Minister says: “It’s too hard. There are too many applications in the system. We’re going to have to shoot half of them and we’ll have to change the rules.” The new rules would be that the Minister and the officials get to make some choices from time to time about whom we invite to come in. So the Minister and the officials who were too stupid to make changes when the computer system told them to change from 24 points to 25 are supposed to be so clever that they can be entrusted with making arbitrary judgments and arbitrary changes of policy day by day as empowered by Part 2 of this bill. That is clearly nuts. 
The Minister and the officials who could not notice when the computer system said that 24 should be crossed out and changed to 25 are so clever that they can be entrusted with reading the indications in the marketplace and making those changes. 
 As Mr Prebble said there are some very clear signs in the marketplace as to what is going on out there. Does the Minister know there is an acute shortage of workers on dairy farms in Southland? I know that the local member of Parliament has had representations from Federated Farmers and local farmers who say they cannot get applications approved by the Immigration Service. The Minister does not seem to know that. She is pretending not to listen at the moment. Clearly neither the Minister nor her officials know that. Yet the new system will rely on that Minister and her officials being up to the mark with what is going on in the marketplace. The new system will depend upon her knowing that in Southland there is an acute shortage of workers on dairy farms and as Mr Prebble told us there is an acute shortage of truck drivers in some sectors in some parts of New Zealand. 
The people who could not notice the computer system saying to change 24 points to 25 are supposed to be able to make the most subtle and sophisticated readings of the marketplace and drive day-by-day changes to the policy accordingly. That is just not credible. Nobody in the Committee tonight appears to believe that. Nobody in the Committee believes that the Minister and her officials are capable of such subtlety and sophistication. 
My other point is that new clause 15A inserted by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper amends section 60 of the Act and that new clause is a consequence of Justice Chambers decision a month ago. I ask the Minister again when did she know that that provision would be required and why did she not pick up the phone and call me and Mr Prebble and Mr Peters and say: “I’ve got a problem. I want to fix it.” I have reason to believe that many weeks ago she knew she had this problem. I have looked at that judgment. The Minister of Immigration—as defendant—was represented by Mr Mark Woolford senior counsel and I bet dollars to doughnuts that Mr Woolford said to the Minister: “We’re gone. We won’t win this case.” 
I guarantee to the Committee tonight that this Minister knew she would need the law changed. That is why we have new clause 15A. Yet I was told about it today and Mr Prebble and Mr Peters were told today but United Future was probably told several weeks ago and that is why United Future is being so secretive and so quiet in these proceedings. United Future will agree to anything to help this Government out of a hole as we have seen on a number of issues in recent times. But I tell the Minister that this is an important area of policy and if she knows that something is going wrong she owes it to us to tell us about it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I shall speak briefly about the remaining aspects of the elements of Part 2 that I have not already addressed and then I shall speak briefly about the sequence of events in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Interestingly I think that both Mr McCully and Mr Prebble have become confused between work-permit policy and residence policy. That is not an unusual thing to happen when one notes the situation in 1998. Because of the figures Mr Jones read out which showed a falling rate of immigration in 1998 the Government of the day decided to change the policy so that the offer of employment attracted premium points—five points—regardless of whether the job offer was relevant to the individual’s qualifications or experience. In fact the whole system melted down once again with highly professional people gaining residence and having a job offer as a forecourt attendant at a garage. A constituent came to my electorate office a few weeks ago to tell me that he had had his petrol poured by a neurosurgeon and he was appalled that that situation was still arising in our country. 
Unfortunately there is a mismatch with work-permit policy. Work-permit policy is a matter on my agenda but it is not relevant to the debate on the skilled migrant category. The skilled migrant category is for people to obtain residence in New Zealand. The general skills category as it is now the interim category or the skilled migrant category of the future is not to meet New Zealand’s labour market shortages such as truck-drivers. It is to meet our skill shortages such as people in the information technology areas who will help to grow New Zealand’s economy. This is really about building New Zealand’s skills set out of our skilled immigration policy. It is not designed to replace work-permit policy. It is simply to utilise the category as it was properly to be used in the first place. 
The trouble is that both Mr McCully and Mr Prebble said opposite things about the points system but have highlighted the deficiency I am trying to get rid of. The deficiency in the current system is that the points rise or fall based on the numbers and not on the quality of the application. Under the new points system for the expression of interest there will be a threshold of points that anyone who wants to lodge an expression of interest has to meet. But that person will not be able to lodge an expression of interest if he or she does not meet a set number of points and they will not be fluctuating over a period of time. In my time as Minister they have gone from 24 points to 29 points. Have New Zealand’s needs changed in that period so that we need only the people that Mr Prebble described as meeting the requirements of 29 points? No they have not and that is the problem with the current system. It is why we want a set threshold that people have to meet in order to lodge an expression of interest. It will not adjust based on applications. We will meet the New Zealand immigration programme which has been established at 45000 for this year and 45000 for the next 3 years is the indicative level. New Zealand’s First’s objection is that this Government is supportive of an active immigration programme. We will continue to support an active immigration project. So the points are not to be adjusted. 
Mr McCully raised the question of when I was provided with advice on this particular case. I introduced the Supplementary Order Paper at the earliest possible opportunity. On 6 August I was advised by the Department of Labour that a matter was to occur in the High Court the following day. It was an application under the Habeas Corpus Act. The department warned me that following the outcome of the proceedings consideration might have to be given to an urgent amendment to the Immigration Act. Yes I was provided with a warning the day before the matter went to court. 
The following day I received another piece of advice from the legal section of the Department of Labour advising of the risks and stating that I would have to consider the matter and that the written version of the oral judgment that had been given that day would be available the following week. On the following Monday we had the written judgment from the court and the matter proceeded from there. We worked out a programme to bring together an amendment to the Immigration Act that could be put into place with the Immigration Amendment Bill that was currently before the House. A week’s adjournment fell within that 3-week period. The following week which was last week I sought power from Cabinet to act. I took it through two Cabinet committees last week which would normally take 2 weeks. Yesterday I took it to Cabinet. It was approved by Cabinet yesterday and signed off by my caucus today. 
The member says that this Government has not responded quickly enough but it would not have been possible to move an amendment any more quickly than this. I am very grateful that the National Party New Zealand First United Future and now the ACT party have said that they will support the Supplementary Order Paper. We cannot forget the fact that the individual who is the subject of this case is not in custody at the moment and there is no provision to detain him until this particular amendment is passed. That is one of the reasons this is urgent. However it does apply beyond that particular individual. It applies to another individual whom I spoke of in the motion before the House prior to the Committee stage to consider the Supplementary Order Paper. I made it very clear that another individual was charged with a very serious offence yesterday in relation to the shooting of a woman in Manurewa. That individual was also released because the District Court could not continue to extend his warrant of commitment because of the Mohebbi case. 
That means that we are exposed while the law remains as it is. 
A number of people have commented on the language of the law and the use of the language of discretion. I make the point and the select committee made this point in its report back that we are going to be undertaking a full review of immigration law next year. We will look at the language of the legislation in its totality but it is important that we get this amendment into law at the moment so we can be protected against people who will take no action to support the removal of such people from this country—or in this case sign applications for identity documents to enable them to be removed from New Zealand. 
New Zealand remains under threat I believe by people who could be released under the current section 60 and I thank members of the Committee for providing me with the support I need to get this amendment through. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I note that the Minister has talked about being advised of a gentleman who is serving petrol and is a neurosurgeon. Given that we have a shortage of neurosurgeons particularly paediatric neurosurgeons it is to be hoped that she has followed up on that contact and the information given to her. Hopefully she has organised it so that we can add to our complement of neurosurgeons in this country and not continue to experience a shortage. That is particularly so given that the Minister is now saying that the Government wants to address the shortages in these areas. 
I do not have particular experience of immigration or immigration law so what do I do? I go to the kind of submissions made by the New Zealand Law Society and the requirements for legislative guidelines. In addressing Part 2 and the way the legislation is drafted I would like to bring members’ attention to the legislative guidelines. On page 18 the submission refers to the way legislation should be drafted in relation to immigration. It refers to the fact that in general the more serious the consequence of the decision for individual rights the greater the protection necessary for the person affected. That is in terms of the independence or seniority of the decision-maker the procedure to be followed the specific standards and criteria of the decision and the rights of appeal and review. When there are serious consequences for individuals it is very important that their human rights are addressed. I would have liked to see something in the commentary on how human rights are affected by the way this legislation is drafted and the need to protect people’s individual rights. It is an important component of this bill that I think has been overlooked. 
That issue has been mentioned by the submitters. The Law Society submission states that under the proposed legislation it is impossible to predict an immigration outcome or to advise people that they might qualify for residence and that their applications might lapse at any time. New section 13BB in clause 8 covers the lapsing of applications for visas and permits. I have a gentleman in my constituency who does not know where his current application stands. If at any time two people in pretty similar circumstances are invited—because of course one has to be invited—to make an application and if they have two different officers one person might be granted his or her application and the other one denied. Where is the fairness and equity in that? If one of them gets approved and the other just gets left the application lapses. 
 The constituent I am currently dealing with has spent $2000-plus on his application. He now has no idea where it is at and he may have to pay that money again. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When did he apply? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That is not relevant here and I do not intend to digress on the actual details of this particular case. They have been sent to the Minister’s office so perhaps he might get a speedy resolution. One can live in hope I suppose but I shall be following that matter up with her office in due course. If his application lapses a lot of time effort and emotional trauma will have gone into dealing with the bureaucracy. Suddenly for no justifiable reason that application will have lapsed and absolutely no reason will be given. Where is the right or the ability to appeal? 
I think section 13B really is a travesty. It allows applications to be made and then lapsed with no justification and no right of appeal or redress. That is an appalling situation to put people in and it creates an incredible degree of uncertainty. Unfettered decision-making is a departure from the rule of law. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 It is obvious that the Government has to rely on a huge number of immigrants to keep the country afloat economically. It is a bubble that will burst. It is incredible that the Government is using this massive flow of immigration to prop up the economy. I am proud to be in a party that in Government will make sure that it props up the economy with true and proper economic growth. It will not just use immigration as an excuse because of a failure to keep the economy going in a proper way and a failure to train skill and employ our own New Zealanders. 
In speaking on Part 2 I first want to touch on an amendment put up by my colleague Dail Jones. It states: “To add after the word ‘policy’ on page 4 line 9 the following: Provided that the policy will ensure that no more than a total of 10000 residence visas or residence permits in total are issued per annum.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Ha ha! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Lianne Dalziel is obviously going to give us her support for that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No way! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I thought you were Lianne I am so disappointed. 
Dail Jones 
: The honourable Minister. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I thank Dail Jones for pulling me up there.I support Dail Jones’ amendment because I believe that the number of new residence permits should be a lot less than it is now. As I said it should be more in the vicinity of 10000—not 45000 plus or minus 5000. It is probably plus as the honourable Minister is nodding. In New Zealand First we believe—and I believe personally—that New Zealand simply cannot keep absorbing those high numbers without them having a serious impact on our health infrastructure our roading infrastructure our schools and universities and our taxi industry. 
Marc Alexander 
: Where’s your evidence? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Marc Alexander from United Future asks where my evidence is. I sat in traffic for 2 hours in Auckland the other day. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You can’t blame immigration for that. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I sat in traffic for 2 hours. I think that is pretty much enough evidence that we are bringing in far more people than our roading infrastructure can handle. That is a basic fact. It was not even rush hour; it was about 3.30 p.m. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell Mr Alexander that I was on the motorway. He comes from a party that wants 60000-plus immigrants in this country. That is what United Future said in its election manifesto. They are nodding their heads. If they are voting for this bill there is obviously a reason. It must mean that they want more immigrants but that is what New Zealand First is absolutely opposed to. 
This bill will not take the weight off those 280 interpreters in the Auckland hospital system; it will not reduce the backlog of traffic on our roads. All it will do is add to that problem. It will continue to put pressure on our schools and universities. We have to do a lot to reverse the taxi driver problem. In my job as a member of Parliament I have had the chance to drive around in a few cabs. Just the other week I had a driver from overseas who was a doctor. He is driving cabs so there are serious problems in that respect. New Zealand First believes that this bill will do absolutely nothing to reverse the problems we face as a country. 
I turn now to new section 10A inserted by clause 6 and the provision in subsection (2): “The question whether or not to issue such an invitation or to revoke such an invitation once issued is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or subject to any special direction given under this Act— 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I thought it would be useful for New Zealand First to understand that Labour’simmigration target—the quota—is about 45000 and 60 percent of it is meant to come from skilled migrants and business migrants so that reduces the figure to about 27000. I think the Government is looking to get about 20000 from the skilled migrants category. I predict that this bill will greatly reduce the number of skilled migrants who will be approved so I am surprised that New Zealand First is not supporting it. It would go quite a long way to addressing its wish to reduce the total number of migrants down to 10000. This bill deals only with skilled migrants and New Zealand First now wants that target reduced to10000. 
I want to acknowledge that one of my proposed amendments to “ensure the transparency and certainty of immigration policies to maintain the international credibility of the New Zealand immigration system” was adopted by the Minister as part of clause 3(a) in Part 1 although I regret it could not be accepted as a stand-alone amendment. In adopting that amendment I would like the Minister to now reflect on the invitation-to-apply provision in terms of transparency and certainty. Submitters to the select committee widely commented that that tool particularly failed to pass the test of transparency and certainty. The legislation makes it quite clear that the discretion to issue a letter of invitation lies entirely with the Minister. If the letter is not issued then technically there is no right of appeal for potential applicants who have submitted an expression of interest. I doubt very much that people who are serious about wanting to receive a letter of invitation would dare to submit an expression of interest that did not incur a lot of cost. In order to secure that letter of invitation they would therefore have gone through the process as if they were submitting a full application with full documentation and incurring consultancy costs or whatever. 
The other thing I want to challenge the Minister on is the current points system. I believe there are sufficient tools in that system for the Minister or the Immigration Service to achieve the aim of accepting applicants who would be of benefit to New Zealand. First of all this points system is a two-step process by which the Cabinet can start to assign points to whatever the Government and officials deem to be appropriate on the day. For example they could allocate points in respect of age qualification or vary the type of qualification that we believe New Zealand requires or the background information or even the relevant skills. 
But under this new changed system that the Minister has just explained to us every 3 months the Government will look at the pool of people who have submitted expressions of interest and take those with the highest points. But the argument can be made that in that particular 3 months we might have people who just cross the threshold but officials will still have to issue letters of invitation to the highest point-scorers whereas in the second 3 months we might have applicants who all exceed the threshold by a lot. I think that system is actually limiting our ability to get the best candidates we can. 
With the current points system the Immigration Service in consultation with the Minister has to express — 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party’s views on Part 2 have been reasonably widely canvassed but I do not believe that the Government has heard enough constructive argument from speakers apart from those of National about issues to do with corruption. That subject is highlighted in clause 6 which deals with the issue of the invitation to apply for residence. That is a matter of discretion—but for whom? That matter can be decided by the Minister by a visa officer by the anointing of the Minister or by an immigration officer by the anointing of the Minister. That discretionary power is of concern to us. National believes there is a need to get a better match of the skills of skilled residence applicants to suit the skill requirements of the New Zealand economy. There is no doubt about that but we think it can be done in a more transparent manner. 
I am not arguing that this particular Minister is open to corruption. She seems to me like a reasonable Minister from time to time but she is setting herself up and setting up all her colleagues—those future Ministers who will follow in her footsteps over the next few months if her resignation comes about—for suspicion in terms of corruption. A number of submitters pointed out that matter to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it is a shame the Minister was not more in tune with those concerns. Submitters had concerns about the way in which that discretion would be applied in the issuing of invitations to apply for residency under clause 6. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not casting those sorts of aspersions on the Minister. I am not suggesting that she would succumb to a packet of money—not at all. My concern for the Minister is that she not only do the right thing but is seen to do the right thing and further that the law provides she could only ever do the right thing. 
Section 10A(2) inserted by clause 6 states: “The question whether or not to issue such an invitation or to revoke such an invitation once issued is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or subject to any special direction given under this Act the appropriate visa officer or immigration officer.” Upon that discretionary decision no appeal against the decision of the Minister the visa officer or the immigration officer is allowed even if the decision is questionable. Even if all of them took questionable action there is no appeal. Further subsection (4) states: “No review proceedings may be brought in respect of any refusal or failure of the Minister or a visa officer or an immigration officer …”. Even if the Minister or the Minister’s officers are suspected of underhand behaviour or of being open to corruption in a particular decision their decisions will not face an appeal and none of them will face review proceedings. 
I ask this Minister whether she really thinks that she herself those who follow her and those who work under her so diligently are so beyond reproach that they should not face appeal or review proceedings. That is of concern to me and I would like the Minister to respond to that. She should not harp back to the fact that those points are already in the Act but she should address my concern and say regardless of whether to a greater or lesser degree the points are already in law how she will address the issue of suspicion of corruption. That is my concern. I put it before the Committee and particularly before the Chair as she considers the bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill. First since no one else has I thought someone should speak to the amendment moved by New Zealand First. I want to say a couple of things to the Committee. The first is that New Zealand First ought to explain its 100 percent change in policy. During the election campaign I was on a platform with Winston Peters and the number of permanent residents to come into New Zealand was 5000. A year later it has doubled. What has happened in the last 12 months? The Government has just arbitrarily picked out that figure. Then we were told by the youngest—I do not want to make a reference to his age—what is his name? 
Dail Jones 
: Craig McNair. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: —that the reason for that is that Craig McNair spent 2 hours in a traffic jam. I say to members who are not Aucklanders that I have no doubt that that is so but I say to Mr McNair that the idea that we would be living in a better country if we did not have any growth and development is ridiculous. The ACT party is in favour of an active immigration policy. We have no doubt that it makes a positive economic contribution to the country as well as a positive cultural contribution and if we had a figure of only 10000 migrants to New Zealand we would have a net loss of population. I have been in towns where there is a net loss. Mr McNair should visit a former mining town to see whether he would like to go and live there. There is nothing more depressing. 
The next thing he should realise is that although it is true that immigrants produce a bit of pressure on our hospitals and other systems it is nothing compared with the positive contribution they make. Our universities would be in dire straits if they did not have overseas students and I am surprised that New Zealand First does not know that. I also find that New Zealand First’s contribution to this debate for a party that states that it concentrates on immigration is very disappointing. One would think that New Zealand First members would also be turning to the mechanisms that are to be applied. They have not got up and explained to us how they would do it and how they would select those 10000 people. The Minister indicated that truck drivers would not qualify for permanent residence because permits are going to skilled people only. That is interesting. I ask the Minister where skills start and what her definition of “not skilled” is. If the truck driver is an owner-driver of a truck that is worth maybe half a million dollars is that a skilled occupation? How does she work out those sorts of arbitrary lines? That is the problem that I find with the bill. 
It appears to me that what the Minister is moving towards—which would appeal to a Minister of Immigration—is a situation in which the Minister can make totally arbitrary decisions that are actually unfair not based on the real evidence unjust and with no appeal at all. There is a name for Governments like that. They are called police States. I note that New Zealand First in its notes referred to a person who gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who had been a lawyer in South Africa and who said that the bill reminded him of aspects of South African law. That worries me. Coming from a Government with a rule of law we think ministerial discretion ought always to be able to be reviewed. Although this Minister may not be unfair and discriminatory this bill is not just for this Minister and this Government but—heaven help us—maybe for a New Zealand First Government and we ought to be in a position— 
Dail Jones 
: Hear hear! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member who is interjecting is an immigrant to this country. I do not hold that against him. He is making a very good contribution but I find it strange when I hear Cockney voices—that member’s deputy leader—warning us against immigration. I say to the Committee that I would like to hear the Minister explain why she believes that not only herself but also future Ministers of Immigration including possibly a New Zealand First Minister of Immigration should not be subject to appeal. If that Minister is making unfair arbitrary decisions that are in contradiction to the facts and that are based on prejudice—even racial prejudice—should there not be the ability to have an appeal? 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the call. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’ve got to answer that haven’t you? 
DAIL JONES 
: I must answer that speech made by the Hon Richard Prebble—I was about to say the “member for Auckland Central”. He made a totally uncalled-for remark about New Zealand First’s election policy regarding immigration numbers. I will read out to him our immigration policy from the “What the parties say about” leaflets. It states that we would cut immigration approval to 10000 per year; there would be increased penalties for breaches of immigration laws; there would be a 3-year probation for immigration during which lawbreakers would be deported; there would be pre-arrival health screening including for HIV. Clearly our policy was 10000 and that is why I have put forward an amendment to the Immigration Amendment Bill in order to make sure that the numbers coming in are limited to 10000. I know it is a fairly crude amendment but it is one way of making the point as to just what our policy is. 
I also appreciate Mr Prebble’s reference to the New Zealand First minority report in so far as this legislation is concerned. That is particularly relevant to Part 2. We had evidence from the Auckland District Law Society stating that as a result of this bill the immigration system could not be trusted the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner the system could be open to corruption and immigration officers could use the powers contained in the legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits or make special conditions etc. unclearly inaccurately or with ambiguity. No respectable party in the House could possibly support legislation that is as wide and as far-reaching as this legislation. Obviously the minority Labour Government and the Progressives as well as United Future can support legislation that is open to corruption that could be discriminatory or racist and as Justin Glyn a solicitor from Auckland said reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa. That is the sort of result that we could have from this legislation. 
We read in the August 2003 issue of  
Auckland Today  
that immigration consultants are saying that this Government can use those powers discriminatorily. If a New Zealand First Government had brought in this legislation I can imagine all the hours we would be staying up day and night with the Labour Party trying to oppose it. But no a Labour Government has brought it in—quite extraordinary. If Government members had been on the hustings at the last election saying they would bring in this legislation there would have been all sorts of problems. I remember the last shots of the Prime Minister on election night with people of Indian origin standing around her suggesting that that was the New Zealand of the future. She gave that sort of impression during her election campaign. Now we have legislation which as Pansy Wong has indicated already in so far as lapsing 20000 applications is concerned involving 45000 people seems mostly to affect people of Indian origin. We have seen already that this latest system cannot be trusted and that it can be used in a discriminatory way. 
Of course New Zealand First cannot support this type of blatantly—and even covertly—discriminatory legislation. Our policies are clear and it was interesting to see how close they are—if not similar or identical—to the Council of Trade Unions’ views on the type of people who should come into New Zealand. Mr Prebble has said we should go to a town that has no people in it. We have those towns today and we have 190000 people coming into New Zealand. The problem is that they all come into Auckland. What is the point of saying we will have all these people coming in when they do not go to those small towns that are now closed—they go only to Auckland. How many come to Wellington? Nobody. I walk down Lambton Quay and it is the same as it used to be in 1984. There has been virtually no change whatsoever except that everything is looking much more attractive. The businesses are doing well tax money is coming in because of all the tourism-based economy that we have but there are no Asians in Wellington. 
David Benson-Pope 
: It’s because of the Labour Government. Everything’s going well under the Labour Government. 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr David Benson-Pope can make as much noise as he likes—I am sure they are not in Dunedin either. All his constituents know he is sitting in the House now that I have brought him into the debate. 
This legislation does nothing for the small towns of New Zealand. They are still struggling along. Tourism is helping them considerably but tourism is quite different from immigration. In so far as universities are concerned Auckland University— 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 7(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to add after the word “policy” the following words: “ provided that the policy will ensure that no more than a total of 10000 residence visas or residence permits in total are issued per annum.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 103 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 131 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to insert new clause 15A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 The schedule mainly relates to the name change from the Residence Appeal Authority to the Residence Review Board. We received relatively few submissions relating to that and I remember that the Auckland Law Society expressed concern over the lack of information about the nature of that change. The Minister might like to take a call to assure the public that this name change itself will not lead to a particular change in the extent of authority due to the fact that the word “Authority” is being substituted with the word “Board”. 
I would like to reflect on what the future workload of the Residence Review Board might be. First of all we know that in the main part of the bill the New Zealand Labour Government introduced the world’s first migration tool kit which is known as the “invitation to apply”. That means that anybody who wishes to apply to migrate to New Zealand need only first of all to submit an expression of interest. If those applicants do not receive a letter of invitation there will be no review and there are no rights of appeal. So I can imagine that for a start quite a bit of the workload of the Residence Review Board will be reduced. 
But a disturbing fact is that during the select committee hearing process we were told by consultants from the New Zealand Association of Migration and Investment that under the current system some 60 percent of appeals were upheld because of miscommunication or different technical interpretation accepted by some New Zealand Immigration Service officials overseas that contradicted the policy or regulations of the immigration system. We were told in the select committee that some 60 percent of those appeals were upheld so first of all I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us whether the expressions of interest of the first lot of people to lodge those will be examined in a way that ensures that no technical error or miscommunication has applied to them so they might gain enough points to receive a letter of invitation. 
I think it is important that the Minister has adopted my amendment in terms of making sure that the immigration system is transparent and certain. I hope she will take a call to explain to us what sort of balances and checks will exist in the system because those rights of appeal have been removed from the people who lodged expressions of interest. 
 We also heard during the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s hearing that there is quite a tough requirement if there is any change of circumstances for those applicants who receive letters of invitation. They have immediately to inform the Immigration Service—that is all of the burden of proof lies with the applicant. Some of us might say: “OK. Fair enough. If you want to come to New Zealand and there are any changes you must inform the authority.” But we want to know whether there is such a burden of proof on the applicant to make sure that he or she has got everything correct. We want to know whether a reciprocal system of balance and checks exists within the service so that whenever it has queries about applications the applicants are kept informed. In that way they would have the opportunity to explain to the service whether all the papers they lodge or the statements they make are true and correct and that no misunderstanding has occurred. That might remove the need for applicants to apply to the appeal authority later on. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I note that this is a debate on the schedule which is simply putting into effect the decision already made in Part 2 to rename the Residence Appeal Authority as the Residence Review Board. But given that the member has raised substantive issues that really ought to have been dealt with in Part 2 I am not going to be too hard on her failure to raise them in the debate on Part 2. She has raised them in the debate on the schedule but this really is not the right time to raise issues of substance. 
However I really do want to correct a point that she made about a reference. The submission that was received from the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment should not be presented to the Committee as if it were an accurate reflection of actual numbers. I have the departmental report in front of me which I will quote from now: “It is of note that comparatively small numbers of people would be affected by the changes. Contrary to claims made in submissions in only 2 percent of cases did the RAA reverse the NZIS decision as being incorrect and order the grant of a residence visa or permit which was down from 5 percent in 2001-02. In a further 26 percent of cases the NZIS assessment was cancelled and referred back to the NZIS for a correct assessment.” 
Let me say something about that 26 percent. Under the current law when the Immigration Service knows that it has made an error people still have to appeal to the Residence Appeal Authority in order to get an error known by the Immigration Service corrected because the service has no power under the existing Immigration Act to correct its own mistakes. This bill allows it to correct its own mistakes so that 26 percent of cases can now go directly to the Immigration Service which can accept that: “Yes an error has occurred.” instead of advising as it has until now that: “We know we’ve made an error but there’s nothing we can do about it because we’ve made a decision and that decision can’t be reversed by us. You will have to go to the Residence Appeal Authority or send another letter to the Minister.”—which seems to be a course of action that a number of people adopt as well. So the Immigration Service will be able to amend its own errors under Part 2 of this bill which we have already dealt with. 
I should also make the point that in the 26 percent of cases that were cancelled and referred back to the Immigration Service for a correct assessment only 10 general skills applications decided off shore were included and only 10 business decisions with the majority of cases being family-sponsored stream applications that will retain appeal rights under the proposed changes. Having listened to the same evidence that has been raised in the House tonight the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee decided not to proceed with the original intention which was to limit the rights of appeal to those who were on shore to those who were sponsored by a close family member or to an employer prepared to sponsor the appeal to the Residence Appeal Authority. 
The name is being changed from the Residence Appeal Authority to the Residence Review Board to shift away from the idea that the system is an entitlement-based system and I do not resile from that for one minute. I believe we are making an important change. 
In respect of the language in the bill a number of people have commented that it is the language of discretion and I point out that that is what the existing Act says. We have made it very clear that we are going to review the Immigration Act in total—and the select committee has accepted that. We are going to get the language right and I invite members to participate in that review when it occurs. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for making a contribution. I think that is very parliamentary of her and I commend her action in doing that. I will reciprocate by not taking a very long call. 
I want to raise one question. The Minister talks about the language and if members look at the schedule they will see—as the Minister correctly said—that most of it is devoted to changing the name of the Residence Appeal Authority to a Residence Review Board. When we look at the parts of the bill we have agreed to at the moment we see that on the face of it it is not obvious why that change is being made. Indeed reading further when the bill refers to the Residence Review Board for the first time it says it is exactly the same as the authority. Section 18B(1) inserted by clause 12 states: “For the purposes of this Act there is a board called the Residence Review Board. The Board is the same body as the Residence Appeal Authority …” so the question one has to ask is: why the name change? 
I am left with the impression that the Government really wants to indicate to the courts which may be reviewing that body that it is a body not able to review the Minister and not able to be a real appeal authority and look at what has happened. It is a much lower body indeed. When one looks at the parts of the bill—which we have already agreed to so I am not going to go further—one sees that all sorts of actions that were able to be reviewed are no longer able to be reviewed. I make the point to the Minister that I do not agree with that name change. I do not agree with the idea that Ministers and civil servants should be above the law. The ACT party believes in the rule of law and we think the rule of law should apply to everyone—in particular to Ministers of Immigration. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is indeed a strange amendment by the Government. It is almost as if the Government has a fetish for giving new names to things. We have come across new names for Crown land which is to be called “public domain” and now we have the Residence Review Board taking over from the Residence Appeal Authority. 
As the Law Society said on page 9 of its submission no reason has been given for the renaming of the Residence Appeal Authority. In a way it makes it very hard to attack the provision if there is no reason for it though it is perhaps consistent with the unilateral way in which a Government—and this Government—could apply the bill and the various discretions contained in it. If the Government can change the name of the Residence Appeal Authority—which has a certain ring about it given that it concerns an appeal and is an authority but with the main word being “Appeal”—to the Residence Review Board is it trying to indicate that the body is a totally different one as the Hon Richard Prebble suggested? To some extent it obviously is different. 
This Government by the way it is acting under this legislation has opened itself up to all the criticisms mentioned in relation to Part 2. One has to scratch one’s head in absolute wonderment as to why we should waste the time of Parliament the parliamentary draftsmen the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and all those people who made submissions with about three and a bit pages of amendments just so the Government can get a kick out of changing the name of the Residence Appeal Authority to the Residence Review Board. It is extraordinarily strange. It is an utter waste of money and a waste of time. To prove my point I will leave it at that. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I have taken some interest in the parts of the schedule because like those who have spoken before me I was scratching my head and wondering why it was that Part 1 of the schedule consists entirely of a series of name changes from “Residence Appeal Authority” to the new “Residence Review Board”. Part 2 makes a similar change in relation to the Electronic Transactions Act. If members go back to new section 18B in clause 12 they will be interested to see the wording: “For the purposes of this Act there is a board called the Residence Review Board. The board is the same body as the Residence Appeal Authority”. Again in clause 12(4): “The Residence Review Board is the same body as the Residence Appeal Authority that existed immediately before the commencement of this Act”. 
On the face of it we have a schedule the sole purpose of which—and I listened to the Minister’s explanation—is to change the name of the existing Residence Appeal Authority to Residence Review Board. I imagine this will lead to a bold and exciting new era for those involved in this august body. No doubt the new Residence Review Board can call in the design consultants to provide a brand new logo and letterhead. No doubt it will be able to refurbish the offices get a nice new logo and invite the Minister along to cut a ribbon. It will have some material for the next version of the Immigration Service newsletter. 
Dail Jones 
: In Maori! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Yes of course a new Maori name for the new Residence Review Board. I am sure the Minister of Maori Affairs has already advised his colleague the Minister of Immigration on a suitable name. The board will have to appoint a cultural officer—a kaihautu a spiritual leader—to guide this new Residence Review Board waka into the future. The whole thing could get somewhat out of hand. 
Looking at the schedule in the first instance one has to ask whether we will see another one of these wonderful exercises that we have seen under this Government where we have the same thing with the same people doing the same job with a different name with a new logo and with a whole new bunch of photographs of the Minister in the Immigration Service magazine—no doubt touched up by the same people who do the touching up for the Prime Minister’s photographs. 
I listened to the Minister’s explanation. She said this was being done to move away from the old entitlement-based system. That is one way of putting it but another way of putting it is to say that it is moving away from a system where the rules were clear and where the actions of everyone involved were subject to review to a system of scrutiny whereby for the most part no such review is possible which means that the actions of those who are currently subject to scrutiny currently subject to review will no longer be subject to such scrutiny and review. That seems to be enormously convenient. It is enormously convenient for the Minister and even more convenient for her officials because I am sure that once they have got past the distraction of the review by the Secretary of Labour over the next day or two and once they have got past the review by the Ombudsman—for misleading the Ombudsman under the Official Information Act—I am sure they will be exhausted. The last thing they will want to have is some examination and independent scrutiny of their actions by a Residence Appeal Authority. Having something called a Residence Review Board which will not actually subject their actions to review will be very welcome indeed. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the schedule my excellent colleague the Hon Murray McCully has just pointed out to the Committee what is provided for in clause 12 where it describes what this Residence Review Board is. The schedule right the way through the principal Act replaces “Residence Appeal Authority” with “Residence Review Board. It is extraordinary that new section 18B(1) in clause 12 states: “For the purposes of this Act there is a board call the Residence Review Board. The board is the same body as the Residence Appeal Authority”. Some people might say: “Aha! Hang on! While it might be the same body maybe the Government intends to change the membership and maybe it will be a different body.” Oh no! That is not the case at all. If members look at clause 12 they will see that a little bit has been stuck in under subclause (4). I understand that new paragraph (c) was put in at the request of the Residence Appeal Authority. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’ve already done that part. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I know but it is important to understand what the schedule is doing. The schedule is not even changing the membership of the Residence Appeal Authority. That new paragraph (c) stuck in under clause 12(4) states: “the persons who immediately before the date of commencement of this Act were members of the Residence Appeal Authority continue as members of the Residence Review Board on the same terms and conditions as applied before that date:”. What is just dumb is to go to all the expense of changing the name of a board when no element of it is to be changed—nothing! There will no change to the membership. Even the chairperson is not changing. This bill protects the position of the chairperson. New paragraph (c)(ii) states: “the person who immediately before the commencement of this Act was chairperson of the Residence Appeal Authority continues as chairperson of the Residence Review Board for the period specified in that person’s notice of appointment as chairperson.” If nothing is being changed to do with the board itself—not changing any of the membership not changing the chair of the board—what on earth is the Government doing apart from squandering taxpayers’ money? My good colleague Mr McCully mentioned that the logo will have to change because obviously “Residence Review Board” is not the same as “Residence Appeal Authority”. There will be all new stationery and everything to do with this body will have to change and for what purpose when nothing of substance is being changed? This Labour Government is so good at this sort of thing. We used to negotiate things called free-trade agreements in this country but not with Labour in Government. It does closer economic partnerships which are just weasel words for the same thing. We negotiated a free-trade agreement with Singapore but Labour turned it into a closer economic partnership. We negotiated the heads of agreement for a free-trade agreement. I signed them personally. However it is the same stupidity and same political correctness to change words at huge cost to the taxpayer. 
 I think that anyone listening to this debate would have to ask what on earth the Government is doing this for. No element of the Residence Appeal Authority is being changed. When we look back through the legislation we have just been debating it makes it so clear that nothing is being changed—not the purpose of the board not the membership of the board not the chairmanship of the board. The only things that are being changed are the expensive things like the logo and the stationery. All that stuff has to be changed. As my good colleague Murray McCully pointed out probably these days with this politically correct Labour Government the board does have to have a kaihautu and we know how expensive they are. This kind of stupidity and wastage should stop. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Judicial Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b). 
The bill is an important piece of constitutional legislation. The measures in it are aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary and recognise the fundamental importance in a democracy of ensuring an independent judiciary in addressing judicial resources. The bill also responds to this Government’s commitment to revisit update and consolidate the laws and procedures that delineate the relationship between the judiciary and other branches of Government. 
The bill is divided into two parts. The first part will become a stand-alone Act and the second part amends various existing statutes and will be split into the relevant amendment Acts. Part 1 establishes new processes for dealing with complaints about the conduct of judges and those rare situations when it may be necessary to consider removal of a judge. A new office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner will be established. The commissioner’s role will be to receive and process complaints about judges to identify those requiring a full investigation because they raise a question of removal of a judge. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner will have the power to dismiss complaints that are frivolous vexatious and trivial and may refer complaints to the relevant head of bench. If the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is of the opinion following an initial examination that an inquiry into the complaint is necessary and that the complaint if substantiated may warrant removal of the judge he or she will report to the Attorney-General and recommend appointment of a Judicial Conduct Panel. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. Before a recommendation is offered the Governor-General and the Attorney-General must consult with the Chief Justice and advise the House that consultation has taken place. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner must be a person whose impartiality and integrity is beyond question and in whom the public and the judiciary may have confidence. A retired judge or other senior figure may be able to fulfil the role. The commissioner is a statutory appointee. The office of the commissioner will be located for administrative convenience only within the Ministry of Justice. The commissioner will be under a duty to act independently and will not be accountable to the Secretary for Justice in carrying out the functions of the office. Every year the commissioner will provide a report which will be laid before this House and contain information about the complaints process. 
The Judicial Conduct Panel will play a crucial role in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. It will inquire into a serious complaint that has been referred to it by the Attorney-General. The panel may determine whether the conduct complained of occurred and if so whether the conduct amounts to incapacity or misbehaviour that demonstrates a judge is unfit for office. The removal of a judge has never been necessary in this country so the exact process leading to the dismissal has not been established. It is desirable for this process to be set out before it is required as a hastily devised process may damage public confidence and impose risks to judicial independence. 
The Judicial Conduct Panel will be made up of three people. There will be one lay member who will be neither a judge nor a lawyer. The other two members will be a judge or a retired judge and may include a senior member of the legal profession. The panel will be appointed— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a requirement in this House that speeches be given in English or Maori. We are being treated to high-speed gabble. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Richard Worth 
: I would invite the Minister to slow down so we can hear what she is saying. She is reading from densely written typescript. It is almost impossible to hear on this side of the House. I appreciate she wants to get through the material quickly but it would be good if the House could hear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue is a debatable matter. The Minister has heard what has been said. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on your ruling that this is a debatable matter. I totally concur with Mr Worth. It was an absolute bullet-like repetitive gabble. I could not understand what the Minister was saying. She is reading from prepared notes and that is not debatable. The House or certainly the Opposition parties could not understand what the Minister was saying. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The way in which a Minister delivers his or her speech is not a matter of order. It is entirely up to the Minister concerned. The member is playing with the House. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I apologise if honourable members could not follow me. I assumed they had read the bill which has been tabled. 
The panel will be appointed by the Attorney-General after consultation with the Attorney-General. Judges of the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Employment Court are subject to removal by the Attorney-General on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour on an address from this House. Other judges are subject to removal by the Governor-General on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour. In the case of other judges the Governor-General acts by convention on the advice of the Attorney-General. There are no changes proposed to these arrangements. 
Part 2 implements various proposals to strengthen judicial independence or address judicial resources. Amendments will be made to the relevant Acts to enable judges of all benches to work part time. Flexible working arrangements are increasingly possible and desirable in the modern workplace and should be available to judges subject to the needs of the courts in which they sit and the needs of the public. 
 The bill provides an absolute immunity from suit to be extended to all judges. At present judges of the Court of Appeal High Court and Employment Court have absolute immunity from suit in respect of actions taken against them in their role as judges. Judicial immunity promotes judicial independence by allowing the fearless performance of the judicial function. It does not preclude other remedies for persons aggrieved by the actions of a judge. Appeal to a higher court is and should be the primary remedy for a litigant who is dissatisfied with the judge’s decision. Judicial immunity does not exclude compensation from the Crown in cases of miscarriage of justice and in cases of misbehaviour or incapacity that indicates a judge is unfit for the office he or she may be removed. Criminal prosecution for corruption remains available and there are formal complaints processes that are strengthened by the proposals for a judicial conduct commissioner and a judicial conduct panel. 
The bill contains proposals that will strengthen the office of Master of the High Court by providing the masters with the same rights of permanent tenure as other judges. Masters will also have a new title—Associate Judge of the High Court—that more accurately reflects their role. 
Two proposals in the bill directly address issues of judicial resources. Firstly the bill provides a new mechanism for setting a maximum number of judges in the High Court and the District Court. Currently when the number of judges is at a maximum separate legislative amendments to the District Courts Act and the Judicature Act are required each time an additional judge is needed in the District Court or High Court respectively to deal with increased workloads. Under the new proposal the maximum number of judges in those courts will be raised by Order in Council. The order will come into effect once it has been converted by resolution in this House. 
The changes to the tenure and role of the Principal Family Court Judge and the Principal Youth Court Judge included in the bill are intended to provide a regular turnover in the administrative leadership of those functions by introducing a fixed 8-year non-renewable term. The changes are made in a manner that recognises the principle of judicial independence and therefore will not affect the present Principal Youth Court Judge or Principal Family Court Judge. 
The bill enables community magistrates to be appointed on a temporary warrant after they have reached the mandatory retirement age and also consistent with provision of District Court judges. It also provides for future Environment Court judges and commissioners to be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General after consultation with the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Maori Affairs. The effect is that all judges with the exception of the Chief Justice and the judges of the Maori Land Court will be appointed on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. This proposal will help in promoting coherence consistency and professionalism in the appointments process and is the appropriate match with the Attorney-General’s role as the Government’s senior law officer. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Would it not be great if we had a confidence that the Attorney-General believed in the merits of this bill? We have been treated to a gabbled speech read at high speed from closely written typescript. I would like to start if I may—and against the background of the interruptions from the Minister of Defence; we all know about his legal experience do we not?—with the overview provisions in the explanatory note of the bill. The Government asserts that collectively the measures are aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary and recognising the fundamental importance in a democracy of ensuring an independent judiciary and addressing judicial resources. 
I have to say with a measure of sadness that National supports this bill going to a select committee. We do so with significant reservations. For my part those reservations centre on two things: first of all the absence of provisions relating to judicial appointments; and second the provisions relating to the appointment of part-time judges. I do not take any heart from the fact that in material produced by the New Zealand Law Society  
Law Talk 610 
 dated 1 September 2003 this comment appears: “Margaret Wilson said work on proposals for such an office”—that is relating to the appointments process—“was continuing with final decisions expected by the end of the year.” So here we have an incomplete imperfect bill that fails to deal with what is really the critical issue confronting the judiciary today which is that related to judicial appointments. 
There is a growing apprehension in the community and I speak of the legal community and the non-legal community about the ability of the Attorney-General to make merit-based recommendations on judicial appointments. There are two reasons for that I suggest. The first is related to the innate limitations of the Attorney-General’s decision-making process and the second is a bias that she has against merit selection. There are multiple illustrations of mal-appointment and they range through the judicial ranks. So on a quasi-judicial level they touch people like Susan Bathgate Ella Henry and Joris de Bres. In the District Court unfortunately there are also some recent examples. 
The Attorney-General may think that these affirmative action programmes are justified—that political correctness is in some way justified. But I suggest that all parties lose from the process. Who are those parties? Well the public lose because they lose confidence in the judiciary and the system of judicial administration. The second group of people who lose out are the litigants appearing before the courts. And of course not to be forgotten another person who loses out is the judge who is out of his or her depth with the role entrusted to him or her. We have seen in the last 2 years I would say a number of judges appointed who are literally out of their depth. Why is that? It is because they have not been appointed on a merit basis. They have been appointed on a basis that reflects political correctness or affirmative action. I am interested to see the Minister of Defence—the so-called know-all on matters relating to all things—shaking his head and intervening in the incautious way that he so often does. I pose the question: what would he know about these issues? What is the answer to that? Absolutely nothing. But confidence characterises this Minister of Defence with flawed procurement policies in defence. He is nevertheless prepared to offer a view on anything and everything. 
Parliament had been led to believe that legislation would shortly be forthcoming to deal with judicial appointments. I see opposite the hard-working chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee—a committee on which I too am privileged to sit. He has laboured under the same delusion as I have; that there would be shortly coming to the House—particularly in the context of the Supreme Court Bill which abolishes the Privy Council—material of substance relating to judicial appointments. Well he has been disappointed I have been disappointed and the other members of the select committee have been similarly disappointed. 
It is a very curious position that in the context of the bill that plans to abolish the Privy Council an informal process is to be embarked on for the appointment of the judges of our highest court. It is clearly a recognition that what is occurring at the moment under the aegis of the Attorney-General’s power is unsatisfactory because what she has proposed to establish is an informal advisory committee. And who are the players on that? Well herself—and I am sure she will be consulting herself—the Chief Justice the Solicitor-General and a former Governor-General. I do not wish to criticise the former Governor-General who has been placed on the advisory committee but I venture to suggest that he will find it very difficult to make a contribution to the sorts of issues that will be importantly before him. 
I would like if I may to turn to a second issue which judging by the statements that the Attorney-General has made tonight is clearly an important one. These are her plans in respect of part-time judges. Who would like a part-time non-committed judge to sit in judgement on a particular case if one were a litigant? The explanatory note states: “Provisions in the Bill allow for Judges to sit on a part-time basis in appropriate circumstances. The proposal will ensure that Judges have good work conditions consistent with EEO policies.” What might that mean? “In the modern workplace flexible working arrangements are increasingly desirable and achievable. The proposal may also assist with recruitment and retention of high calibre members of the judiciary.” The explanatory note continues: “Part-time work will be authorised by the Attorney-General with the concurrence of the relevant Head of Bench. Part-time work will usually be sought for defined periods for reasons of health family commitments or approaching retirement.” I would like to underscore those criteria relating to health or approaching retirement. If I were a litigant I would not want a sick judge sitting on my case. If I were a litigant I would not like an ageing and decrepit judge sitting on my case where the amounts at issue might be significant. 
Where is the Attorney-General taking us in respect of the Judicial Matters Bill? Nowhere good I would say. A number of commentators have already offered insights into the merit of this legislation. I would like to ask some questions of the Attorney-General noting her seated opposite and listening with rapt attention to the comments I now make. Here are two of the questions. Is it appropriate for the Attorney-General to become so directly involved in the management of the judiciary? How are the Attorney-General and Chief District Court Judge to choose between applicants for part-time positions where it is likely there is competition for such positions? 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will speak briefly as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee to which this bill is to be referred for public consultation and detailed consideration. The timing of the bill could barely be better. The select committee has been considering the Supreme Court Bill as Mr Worth has just mentioned for the past 5 months. That debate has raised a whole series of matters that are touched on in this legislation or are within the ambit of the debate that undoubtedly we are going to have around those issues. I am sure I can speak for the whole select committee when I say that we are keen and ready to address these matters. We are also currently out for consultation on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Additionally as that bill is to revise the whole complaints system relating to the legal profession it is highly relevant that in this legislation we are looking at a new complaints system relating to judges. 
Matters that affect the judiciary are inevitably of constitutional importance as noted by the Minister. Such matters do deserve rigorous consideration and I can undertake on behalf of the select committee that we will do our job and do it very well. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill was heralded as being the answer to a considerable number of problems including in particular the appointment of High Court judges. We heard from the United Future member of the Justice and Electoral Committee various comments that hinted that this bill would be covering those issues. Obviously he was not able to put any pressure on the Government to make sure that those issues were contained in this bill. I read with interest a comment in the paper indicating that United Future was going to vote against this bill. I will have to congratulate United Future members if they do vote against this bill on maintaining that standard. As far as New Zealand First members are concerned we will support this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
I do wonder about the bill’s overall worth when I look at Part 1. I can see the overall requirements in Part 2 regarding increasing the number of judges and such like. But really I am a bit sceptical about setting up yet another commission. We are going to have a Judicial Conduct Commissioner who will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. That person is going to be appointed by the House of Representatives. We do not seem to have the privilege of being able to do this for the new Supreme Court judges but we are going to appoint a Judicial Conduct Commissioner by appointment through the House of Representatives. We manage to appoint the ombudsmen and I think the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who are parliamentary officers through the House of Representatives but we cannot appoint the new lot of Supreme Court judges if the bill ever gets to that stage by some sort of consultation though a select committee of this House or through some general approval by members of the House of Representatives as happens for the ombudsmen. However we can find space to appoint a Judicial Conduct Commissioner—yet another one of these groups—through the House of Representatives. 
What is this person going to do? He or she will receive complaints about judges and will deal with those complaints in the manner required by this bill. It is difficult enough to get really good barristers to take on positions as judges and now they are going to be confronted by some person—and as members of Parliament we have all had these people coming to see us—saying: “That judge got it wrong. Now I am going to take it to various members of Parliament and to the Minister. I am going to write to the editor go to the ombudsman and I’ve got another one now. I can take it to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.” 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Who needs it? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes—who needs it? One wonders: just where do we go? We appoint people to be judges and we now have to scrutinise everything they do. Do we not trust them in the first place? Are they not the best in the land? Now we are going to have a person scrutinising them. 
One of the things that has been given to the judges—and it is the lower court judges; usually at District Court level—is that they can be the subject of civil proceedings as I recall it if they act in excess of jurisdiction. I see that this bill seems to be covering that immunity in so far as District Court judges are concerned. I guess that is something of a quid pro quo; I get the feeling it is a quid pro quo for this extra examination by this particular type of commissioner. 
What is going to be the subject of the complaint? Clause 11 states that any person may make a complaint about the conduct of a judge. What on earth is that? People can complain about the conduct of a judge. Did he or she arrive late? Did he or she not ask the right questions? Did he not accept the person’s evidence and say the person was guilty of whatever it was—when the person was obviously innocent and the whole world knew it! 
Stephen Franks 
: He dresses funny. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes—does he dress funny? Does he have long hair? That could be the subject of a complaint. The judge might be a Rastafarian. We all know that Rastafarians on cannabis cases will probably be too strict with cannabis smokers! Judges get strange like that. 
 Any person can make a complaint about a judge. The complaint does have to be in writing it must identify the judge who is the subject of the complaint identify the complainant and state the subject matter of the complaint. The bill has not been with us for too long but I presume that the complaint must have been about a case in which the complainant was involved. If we do not have those busybodies who can go along to a court to say: “Oh that case wasn’t handled very well and I’m going to make a complaint about the judge in that case because that judge didn’t do this that or whatever.” what sort of situation will we have? 
The bill states that the commissioner must dismiss complaints that fail to meet a required threshold. What does that mean? Is the complaint frivolous vexatious or not in good faith? The type of people I am speaking about are people who will never accept that their complaint is frivolous vexatious or not in good faith. They believe very very sincerely that their complaint is of the utmost importance and nothing could be of the greatest requirement to ensure the highest standard of the judiciary. 
In the short time I have been back in the House I have had letters complaining about the judiciary. I have heard all sorts of allegations about the judiciary. People do hold those views sincerely but one must ask oneself whether the Government’s answer is to set up a body that will get those people on their way to the commissioner and maybe we will not see them again. I am sure that once they go to the commissioner and the case is rejected they will be back to their MPs once more and we will only have delayed the inevitable. 
As far as membership of the Judicial Conduct Panel is concerned the Attorney-General may at any time appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire into and report on a complaint about a judge who has been the subject of a recommendation. A Judicial Conduct Commissioner is being appointed now and that will be one nice job for somebody. One can see them all lining up now. 
Judith Collins 
: You can see Margaret’s mates lining up. 
DAIL JONES 
: One can see Margaret Wilson’s mates all lining up for the job of Judicial Conduct Commissioner. However on top of that or below it is the layer of Judicial Conduct Panel. 
Judith Collins 
: Joris de Bres can do that. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes Joris de Bres could do that. Clause 21 refers to membership of panels. A Judicial Conduct Panel consists of the following persons appointed by the Attorney-General—and we know how good all her appointments can be. Two members will be judges or a retired judge etc. and there will also be a lay member. So here we go. We have jobs for the boys and girls. It is amazing how this Labour Party continues to create all those bodies and such like. What is all this trying to achieve? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How many have they got in Cabinet? 
DAIL JONES 
: They have about 24 in Cabinet. Just about everybody in the Labour Government has a job. If any of their friends do not have a job at this stage then here is a chance for them to get one. Of course if one is not satisfied one can appeal to the Court of Appeal. What are we coming to? Judge Smith wore the wrong sort of shirt and tie. He was wearing his King’s College tie or shirt and did not go to St Paul’s College in Ponsonby. I assume that would be frivolous or vexatious. However one can take it that there will be cases where they will not be satisfied and there will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal. What on earth is New Zealand coming to? We will be spending all this money on that particular body. I just wonder what we are coming to. 
The last point I want to comment on is the part-time judge. When my wife was teaching at one stage she was involved in job-sharing. One of the teachers at the school had just had a child and my wife job-shared with her for a year. I expect that this provision probably relates to job-sharing for judges who have just had children—males or females in this day and age—and there is some merit in it. However one issue that has not been covered by the Minister is the system in the United Kingdom of having part-time recorders. The Minister does not even seem to have touched on this but we could have a similar position of recorder; someone who has a trial run to see how good a judge he or she will be. That is the only reason I can see for having a part-time judge similar to a recorder. Otherwise as Richard Worth said do people want a sick person to be their judge? Do they want some old fogey as old as 67-plus and who is not very well either to be a judge? This bill leaves a lot to be desired. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the first reading debate on the Judicial Matters Bill. National will support the bill’s referral to a select committee only because it probably has some reasonable provisions. Like my colleague Richard Worth I note that there are also some worrying aspects to it as well and I shall come to those. 
The underlying aim of the bill is to maintain an enhanced public confidence with regard to the judiciary. That is a laudable aim but it addresses only half the problem. Part of the notion of public confidence depends upon the confidence the public can have in those people who are appointed to the bench in the first place. The other aim of the bill is to adjust other matters within the judicial sphere to improve efficiency and consistency. We look forward to discussion in the select committee to see whether those objectives will be attained in any event. 
The provisions of the bill set up a judicial complaints and removals process to deal with the situation if the removal of a judge is seen to be appropriate. It establishes a new role a Judicial Conduct Commissioner who acts independently to oversee complaints against judges and comes to a view as to whether complaints need to be addressed. It establishes a Judicial Conduct Panel that would oversee any complaints that require an inquiry into a judge’s conduct. That panel will be made up of three people—a lay member and two with legal expertise. National has some reservations about that and we will be looking fairly closely at the submissions made in that regard. Judicial immunity by suit is extended to District Court judges Environment Court judges Masters of the High Court Courts Martial Appeal Court judges and Maori Land Court judges. This seems to be an appropriate provision. 
There is also provision for judges to sit on a part-time basis in “appropriate circumstances”. I am not sure what those circumstances will be. The bill sets out some comment on it but again I would urge the select committee as it considers this bill to see whether that is a reasonable provision. My colleague Richard Worth has already addressed that as well. It may be that the provision for part-time judges suits the personal or domestic circumstances of those who might end up sitting in a part-time manner. But I would query whether that is an appropriate way to man—or woman—a bench. 
Richard Worth 
: Yes an old sick judge covered by a rug trying to dispense justice—ridiculous! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes. That may be so as well but all I am saying is that I would have thought that the coherency and consistency of the bench depends upon judges sitting full time. There are other matters as well. I shall comment on just two other matters that I think need close scrutiny. Principal Family Court judges and Principal Youth Court judges will now be appointed for a fixed 8-year non-renewable term. On the face of it that may be reasonable but I do not see any appropriate rationale for that occurring. 
 Again from my point of view there would be the issue of consistency and continuity on those particular benches. The other matter I raise is the issue of Masters of the High Court being renamed Associate Judges of the High Court and gaining the same rights of permanent tenure as other judges. Although acknowledging the fine work that Masters of the High Court conduct and carry out I question the appropriateness of that. I would have thought that they have different roles and responsibilities. What is the notion of an Associate Judge of the High Court? I do not know. One ought to be either a judge or a master. As I say I raise a reservation about that as well. 
At the beginning of my speech I signalled that I thought there was a major flaw in this legislation in that it deals with only half of the problem and in my view not even the more important half of the problem. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What’s happening to Queen’s Counsel? What are they doing with them? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Exactly. The member asked what is happening to Queen’s Counsel. It is part of the issue of republican creep. I think that is what is happening in that regard. Slowly but surely we will degrade the whole thing. We will bring in part-time judges we will make masters into judges and now we are taking away Queen’s Counsel as well. Those are all things that are occurring in the wider scene under the hand of the Minister Margaret Wilson and one has to question most things that she does particularly her record of appointments. Although I think it is a bit incoherent to deal with removals and complaints and not deal with the issue of appointments at the same time I suppose that if further work is being done in the area of appointments then it may be a good thing because we may be able to find a way to ensure that if this Attorney-General is to be in charge of the legislation that sets up an appointment process it is not subject to political interference. I think that is always the worry with this Government. 
As I say the public has a right to expect a bench of the highest order and the highest quality. This legislation deals with removing judges but does not really address the more critical issue which is the way our judges are appointed to the bench and the way their tenure is characterised. I think that is a major flaw in this legislation. It is a pity that the Minister did not see fit to address both issues at once. After all the work that sits behind this is the report completed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and I think that he certainly saw both of those responsibilities being addressed at the same time. I want to refer to some comments made by the former Attorney-General Sir Douglas Graham who publicly expressed reservations about possible political interference in the judiciary inherent in this bill with the establishment of the Judicial Conduct Panel. I have already indicated that part of the concern there is probably due to the fact that a lay member will be part of the process and there is not a lot of detail as to the overall make-up of the panel. That is Sir Douglas Graham’s comment—an eminent former Attorney-General. 
Richard Worth 
: Eminent. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Absolutely an eminent former Attorney-General who had no republican agenda in his mind and would never support a downgrading of the judiciary in any way. He played it absolutely straight up and straight to the point and he was very committed to those things that uphold the constitution. Such an important part of that is personnel—those who man and woman our judiciary. We support the bill’s referral to the select committee but we certainly have reservations about it and we will be looking to scrutinise those matters at the committee. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. It is a good bill and I think we should facilitate its passage through the House. I am pleased to support it. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I concur with the National Party’s view that this bill should really have dealt with the issue of appointments. United Future differs from the National Party in so far as we believe that the failure of this bill to deal with the appointment process is sufficient to warrant us not supporting the bill in its first reading. We believe that the Judicial Matters Bill was a golden opportunity for this Government to address the whole issue of how judges ought to be appointed and to examine the various models available from overseas in order to determine whether in particular there should be a Judicial Appointments Commission. It is United Future’s view that the availability of a Judicial Appointments Commission in order to do this is a step that we should be seriously examining in this country following what is a growing trend overseas. 
We oppose this bill not so much on what is in the bill but on what is not and the appointment process is the major item. Some of the other issues that I will deal with such as fundamental flaws in the bill as it stands are matters that could be addressed by the select committee and corrected. However the appointment process because of its substance is not a matter that could be dealt with by the select committee. This Government in its 1999 manifesto promised the people that there would be an independent decision-making body for judicial appointments. The 1999 Labour manifesto promised an independent decision-making body for judicial appointments. Where is it? 
Stephen Franks 
: We’ve got it—the Hon Margaret Wilson. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: It does not reside in the Hon Margaret Wilson. However in her press release she said that public confidence in the judiciary and judicial independence are of fundamental importance in a democracy. She said that it was important that judicial appointments and removals were more transparent. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Who told her that? 
MURRAY SMITH 
: This is from her press release of 7 March this year. Well we do not have a more transparent process. This bill does nothing to give us a more transparent process in judicial appointments. It does nothing to take it away from one person making the decision at the end of the day as to who should be on the bench of this country. That is not transparency. That is not independence. Private consultations with the Solicitor-General and the Chief Justice do not constitute transparency and independence. 
It is too easy for there to be political influence in the appointment of the judiciary. I acknowledge that there is no evidence in New Zealand that people have been able to point to to suggest that it has happened so far but when I was at the Commonwealth Law Conference in Melbourne I was struck by just how politicised the judiciary just over the ditch has got. Seventeen out of the 35 appointments to the High Court we know are ex-politicians. I had dinner with some judges when I was there and it was a topic of conversation as to why so-and-so had not been appointed to the bench. The answer was that he was too closely aligned with the Labour Party. Another comment made was that a person was likely to be the next Governor-General depending on the outcome of the election. Australia has a very politicised system. Although that has not happened in New Zealand I think it is an influence that will grow here. It is an influence that we need to provide for at this early stage particularly when we are dealing with issues such as the Supreme Court and the appointment and removal process through this bill. This is our golden opportunity. If this bill goes through as it is we will have lost that opportunity. 
It has been suggested that maybe a cross-party support of parties in terms of judicial appointments at senior levels particularly be used. United Future is not in favour of that because we believe that politicians ought to be kept out of the process. Even though cross-party support gives a variety of views politicians do have vested interests that they all share in common—such as the supremacy of Parliament—which would influence their decisions in terms of the judges who were acceptable. I think it is better that it is kept right out of the political process. We know that Canada at provincial level has a Judicial Commission. The new Caribbean Court of Justice is going to have its appointments dealt with through a Judicial Commission. The UK is currently examining having a Judicial Commission for appointments at the lower level at this stage. A number of African Commonwealth countries are now moving to judicial commissions. It is about time we looked at that issue. So as I said I believe that that is a serious flaw. United Future does not support this bill because it does not deal with that issue. 
In terms of removal the paper presented by Sir Geoffrey Palmer upon which this Government is meant to have designed this bill states that the commissioner would inevitably become a point of contact and clearing-house for complaints regarding the judiciary and could conveniently be advertised as a proper first port of call for complaints. The commissioner would be responsible for screening complaints. In most cases this would simply require forwarding the complaint to the relevant Head of Bench for handling through the judicial complaints lay observer process. In the case of non-serious complaints the statute would require that these be referred to the relevant Head of Bench. The current judicial complaints lay observer process which does not need to be codified in statute would then take over. Well this bill does not do that. 
Clause 15 states that the commissioner must dismiss a complaint if it does not warrant consideration of removal of a judge. The only power of a commissioner to refer the matter to the Head of Bench is if the complaint is not dismissed. So we have a situation where Joe Blow citizen having been dissatisfied with the way that a judge has conducted him or herself approaches this new commissioner who is touted as being the person to whom to refer complaints. And because the commissioner decides that effectively it is not a complaint that amounts to “serious enough conduct to warrant dismissal” he then rejects the complaint—must dismiss the complaint.He then writes back to the complainant: “Sorry you don’t qualify. Get lost!”. Well I can imagine what the public image of judges will be in that sort of judicial process. 
We all have received letters from people who feel dissatisfied with the way that the court process has worked. Some of the submissions we have heard on the Supreme Court Bill have been very full submissions about people who have repeatedly felt they have been poorly served by the judicial process. For such people to write to this new commissioner with great promise then get a rejection saying: “Well it’s not serious enough. Get lost!” will do nothing to help to sustain the public view of the process. For that reason I believe that is a serious flaw in the bill. As I said that is a matter that could be corrected at the select committee but my big concern about the bill is that those sorts of things show that this bill has been rushed and was ill conceived. 
When I was a student and had an assignment due the next day once or twice—probably more—I worked through the night to get it finished so I could hand it in the next day. This bill suffers from the same sort of late rushed drafting that such a practice denotes and therefore I give it four out of 10. Four out of 10 is not a pass mark and therefore does not justify our party supporting the bill. It is important that the Government prepares legislation that is well-thought-through and is given the time to be properly thought through. I have to say that if United Future had been consulted on this bill before it entered the House we might have been able to point out some of these things and get it into better shape for select committee consideration. We are opposing the bill. We believe that an appointments process needs to be looked at—and that needs to be considered at this point; it should be in the first draft of the bill. We believe that the bill has been rushed and poorly thought through. In terms of the other recommendations most of them we believe are probably fairly innocuous. It is a pity that this bill which could have been such an important measure—it was something we were looking forward to; we expected it to be significant—has not been seen by this Government as an opportunity to look at the whole issue properly. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill as previous speakers have said is just one part of some significant reforms of the legal system being undertaken by this Government that the Green Party in general does support. 
Richard Worth 
: It doesn’t support it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It does support them I say to Mr Worth. The Green Party will support this bill going to a select committee and we look forward to hearing submissions on it particularly in the context of a number of the issues raised by the Supreme Court Bill as has been referred to previous speakers. We are pleased to see that the bill contains a number of changes to the management of the judiciary; we think a number of those changes are long overdue. But as previous speakers have said there are some important omissions in it and we hope there will be an opportunity to address some of those things during the select committee process. 
Of course the bill has to be seen in the context of the review by Chen and Palmer of the judicial management system. The  
Judicial Administration Issues 
 report which was released last year raised a number of important issues. One of the questions that the report looked to address was that of a judicial appointments commission. The Greens do support the establishment of such a body as does United Future as stated by Murray Smith. The Supreme Court Bill which is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee has precipitated wide discussion as members know on the appointment process for judges in the context of the establishment of a domestic court of final appeal. Although there has been no suggestion that the process has been biased or corrupted in the past there is growing interest in this country in removing judicial appointments from the realm of politics as much as possible. The basic principle is that judges not only should be free of political influence but should be seen to be free of it. That is particularly important if we are to move to a domestic court of final appeal such as a Supreme Court. 
That general principle was acknowledged in the Chen and Palmer report. The report comments on the fundamental constitutional importance of the independence of the judiciary continued—and probably intensifying—public scepticism about judicial independence criticism of judicial accountability and of course Labour’s 1999 commitment to introduce an independent decision-making body for judicial appointments and removals. But the report did not go so far as to recommend an independent appointments body which the Green Party believes is the obvious logical step to take given those stated concerns. The Greens are very keen to see the establishment of such a body and we will be very interested in what submitters to the select committee say on that subject. Unlike Mr Smith I do not agree that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be unable to look at that question. If it is raised by submitters of course we will look at it and we believe that there are a number of ways that such a thing could be introduced. This bill is the appropriate vehicle to do that. 
A number of submissions on the Supreme Court Bill also addressed the question of the retirement age of judges. The ministerial advisory group on the Supreme Court also suggested that the question of the retirement age of judges generally should be looked at although it did not express an opinion on that matter. That is also something the select committee should examine in the context of this bill. 
The bill does some good things. We welcome the establishment of a Judicial Conduct Commissioner. We believe that this new position and process will increase public access to the complaints procedure and it will also increase transparency in the complaints process which is essential if we want to build public confidence in the judicial process. This position and process are particularly essential when judges are accorded the protection of absolute immunity from suit. Although there are good reasons for that protection it needs to be properly balanced with a transparent process for public complaint. Judicial accountability is essential given the extraordinary level of authority and coercive power that the judiciary holds over the community. 
The Greens also welcome the ability for judges to work part-time. We believe that this is an important facility if we want to attract more judges to the bench and it is important if we want to attract judges who are committed to their families and to community activity as well. This provision will help to increase the diversity of judges and perhaps as a result their temperament. 
The Greens are pleased to see the capacity to increase the number of District Court and High Court judges. One of the major issues for our judicial system is the delays for individuals and their families who either seek justice in the court or are subject to the force of the law. We believe that long delays between hearings cause considerable uncertainty unnecessary disruption to families and hardship. Given that the court process is an intimidating and complex process this uncertainty and disruption will be assisted to some degree by effectively increased court sitting time. 
The bill as I have said has a number of omissions but the Green Party believes that it is a useful place to start. On that basis we are supporting it going to a select committee and look forward to hearing submissions at that stage. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party will vote on this bill in the same way as the United Future party will—against it even at its introduction. But we would be less likely to vote that way if the Associate Minister of Justice Margaret Wilson had not introduced it with a reference motion that would suspend or avoid the operation of the Standing Orders in order to have the bill rammed through the select committee process together with or almost at the same time as the Supreme Court Bill essentially as a decoy action. What the introduction of this bill at this time does is simply enable members of this House who do not want to face the reality of what the Supreme Court Bill is doing to postpone and put off to the consideration of this bill matters that really should be dealt with before the Supreme Court Bill passes. 
So this Judicial Matters Bill is a very empty bill. It is a bill that should be rejected out of hand because it does not do a fraction of what even Labour said it wanted to do about judicial appointments. It is simply a device to enable the Government to persuade the more weak-minded members in this House that they are not avoiding their duty in postponing to a bill such as this things that are critical to the establishment of a new Supreme Court—if that is to be rammed through. 
All that this bill really does is appoint a judicial discipliner—as the Green member has just said someone he expects to manage the judiciary. Does that phrase not send shudders down the spines of those of us who know anything about the constitution? The Green member said he welcomed this bill for the better management of the judiciary. That is what this bill is to do—put the judiciary under the thumb of someone appointed at the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General. This bill says it is on the motion of the House of Representatives but of course it does not have in it anything simple to ensure cross-party support such as the words “with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition” or perhaps “with the approval of leaders of parties representing 66 percent”—or 75 percent—“of the members of the House”. No this bill is simply a provision for the Attorney-General to appoint a person congenial to her to ensure the judges are politically correct. 
When we see the criteria for considering complaints and the duty on the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to consider the complaints we can see that there has been no desire to constrain them. The commissioner must consider the complaints. Even if the commissioner concludes that they are about matters that could not result in removal they must still be considered and go through this process. I believe that the Attorney-General thinks that will be highly educative for the judges. In other words it is to ensure that the judges feel the heavy hot breath of the regulator over their shoulders. 
Richard Worth 
: The heavy hot breath of the Attorney-General. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The heavy hot breath of the Attorney-General as Mr Worth says. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner would be free to look into complaints about the dress sense of a judge the religion of a judge perhaps the sexual preferences of a judge or perhaps the lack of obsequiousness of a judge. Perhaps he or she will look into the failure of a judge to attend the brainwashing sessions that the judges now have to attend where they all sit in ritual obeisance listening to imported harridans telling them how beastly they are to women or to other minorities whom the Government wants to favour. Any of those things could be considered by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and would have to go through the motions that would allow the commissioner to form an opinion whether the complaint if substantiated could warrant consideration of the removal of the judge from office. 
But there is nothing in this bill that tells us what a judge can be removed for. There is nothing here that gets over the fact that a former Minister of Justice the Rt Hon Doug Graham did not have the courage to get rid of judges who had patently trashed the reputation of the judiciary in this country. The Rt Hon Doug Graham left those judges in position and would not bring a motion to the House and this bill does not do anything about that. This bill says that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner will report to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General then will face exactly the same pressures that the Rt Hon Doug Graham could not face. We still do not know whether there will be a motion before the House. We do not even know whether the House can in effect take its own motion; whether this bill protects the traditional sanction by those “elected of the people” against a judge. Those who are able to be ejected by the votes of the people deciding that a judge has broken the required standards and perhaps get rid of him or her should decide without the Judicial Conduct Panel’s recommendation. 
When we look at clause 33 we see it is entirely opaque. The Attorney-General has a discretion to act on the recommendation of the panel but not an obligation to do so—it is an absolute discretion. Then there is a further constraint in that the judge must not be removed on the ground of a finding made by the Judicial Conduct Panel unless the panel has reported to the Attorney-General that it justifies consideration. In effect this bill gives an absolute discretion to the Attorney-General as to whether he or she will act on the conduct panel’s motion and appears to leave no room for Parliament to decide to act even if the conduct panel looks like a bunch of cronies and even if the conduct panel looks as if it has allowed familiarity or undue concern for the sensitivities of the Government to result in a recommendation that there has been conduct that could justify removal but the conduct panel does not think there should be removal. In other words the conduct panel appears to have been set up to snooker Parliament to snooker the possibility of Parliament taking this out of the hands of an Attorney-General who is colluding with the judiciary; it makes sure that Parliament could not do that. This bill confirms the power of the Attorney-General and the Government in power over the judiciary instead of providing a buttress or protections against interference. 
This bill does trifling things but it does them in a way that opens it up for them to be extremely significant. As has already been said this does not deal with the real concern of New Zealanders that we are about to see a Government attempting to set up an entire top court to give it a quasi-constitutional role— 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.