McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8256] 
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.