McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6777] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: Clause 2 is an important clause in the bill before the Committee today because taken in context it gives effect to the retrospective nature of the legislation. For the benefit of those members who have not read it carefully and understood that context—because we are here today under urgency taking this bill through all its stages—there will be no opportunity for members of the public for those who made their applications in good faith or for any other party with a view on this matter to make a submission. The Government intends not only to go through this Committee stage but also to go through the third reading. On the conclusion of the third reading this bill will receive the royal assent—no doubt as early as tomorrow. Clause 2 gives effect to this retrospective legislation being passed under urgency immediately upon the receipt of the royal assent. It is important that we as a Committee understand the significance of this clause. 
Some important issues flow from that. The first is that from the time the bill is assented to the Government will effectively have disengaged from a legal process that it made an in-good-faith commitment to initially but instead decided to abandon in favour of a legislative process under urgency. The prime purpose of this bill—the driver of the so-called immigration policy changes announced by the Minister at the last minute yesterday to avoid scrutiny—is to cover up for the Minister’s misdemeanour in failing to make the policy changes that would have given due and proper notice to those seeking to become resident in New Zealand. A prudent and sensible Minister would have taken those policy changes to Cabinet so that we would see progressive process of analysis by officials and recommendations from Ministers to the Cabinet committee and Cabinet. 
Because she did not engage in that proper process of analysis in making those recommendations the Minister finally woke up one morning and found a massive mess on her hands and her reaction compounded that mess. She decided to promulgate changes that the High Court of this country ultimately found in part to be unlawful. Justice Randerson found that in part the legislative panic responses made by this Minister were unlawful. On 17 June only 2 weeks ago the Minister made a solemn commitment to pursue the matter by way of appeal to the High Court. I say to her that she will have to take a call on clause 2 and tell us how it can be that on 17 June just 2 weeks ago she told members of Parliament members of the public and representatives of the news media that she strongly refuted the decision made by Justice Randerson. She was convinced that it would be open to successful appeal and that she and the Government would so appeal. That is what she told us just 2 weeks ago. 
I say to her today that she needs to take a call and explain. When she told the public of New Zealand that she was going to lodge that appeal did she know that she was embarking instead by subterfuge on this legislative initiative? If so she is guilty of a gross act of bad faith towards the news media and the public of this country. I find it unbelievable that she could not have known 2 weeks ago that she was going to bring this bill before the House and seek urgency today. I find it difficult to believe because first of all I know how long it takes to draft a bill. Secondly I know how long it takes United Future to dither away and make up its mind about whether it will support the Government on a bill like this. The Minister needs to take a call.