Goudie Sandra: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8288] 
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.