McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8285] 
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.