Mapp Wayne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6776] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: I draw to the attention of the Committee although I am sure it has been drawn before to the fact that we have a Minister in the chair who is a lawyer—a paragon of constitutionalism. That is what she would say—a paragon of constitutionalism. I have read a document—which I heard her say earlier today that she did not resile from—in which she said she did not appreciate a Government using urgency provisions in Parliament to avoid due process. That was said on 15 June 1999. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Clayton Cosgrove might say that the Minister should be spared the embarrassment of having that read out in this Committee. I have read about this Minister in the newspapers and she has said to journalists that she takes the rule of law and her ministerial responsibilities very seriously. So what does she do in her first serious legislative action as a Minister? She breaches one of the most basic constitutional concepts—that is she takes people’s rights away misleads them and deals cavalierly with 20000 applicants. 
There was another way here. The Minister could have dealt with those 20000 applicants fairly and reasonably. She could have put some extra staff into the department and processed those applications. On this side of the House we recognise that the old system of immigration did not quite work. My colleagues—Murray McCully Pansy Wong and others—have talked about the need to change the policy. It should be forward-looking. Another bill is now before the select committee that will deal with this issue but that is no excuse whatsoever to run roughshod over the rights—and they are rights—of 20000 people. It is no excuse to run roughshod over the courts the judgment of Randerson J and just say to 20000 people: “You’re out. Apply again and we might think about it’’—notwithstanding that they have paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the application fee and also fees to consultants. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That they don’t need to spend. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That they have to spend to get fair consideration by the deprtment. That is the truth and everyone in this Committee knows it. Who could possibly believe that the Immigration Service is so competent that it does not need to use immigration consultants? This morning on radio I heard that the Minister had engaged Malcolm Pacific to process some applications for Southland—and here is the Minister saying that immigration consultants are not needed. What absolute nonsense! At least she could tell the truth in this Committee today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well I am sure the Minister does tell the truth in this Chamber. She could at least acknowledge what she said on radio this morning. That at least is what I want to hear. 
The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim to be the paragon of constitutionalism then run roughshod over judgments of the courts and over the rights of 20000 people when there is another way to deal with the matter. If those 20000 applicants were processed under the old rules some would get in and some would not. The new rules could then be applied in the future. That at least would have been a reasonable constitutional approach to this issue. 
I have quoted the statements made by the Minister in this Chamber 4 years ago and I took those statements at face value. I have understood that she is a person learned in law. She talks about the conventions of the United Nations which are the Holy Grail for this Government. United Nations conventions must rule on all occasions. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: When it suits. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: When it suits as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu says.