Heatley Phil: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6792] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to express a view on Part 2 of this bill and I know that Dail Jones certainly wants to too. I hope he is able to give us at least a titbit of what he was going to present in terms of new information from the previous one and that he will be allowed the flexibility to do that. 
I would like to focus on clause 6 “Lapsing of certain applications made before 20 November 2002” because that particular clause speaks directly to those people who are directly affected by the rash move of this Labour Government to introduce and pass in urgency this bill that is riding roughshod over people’s rights; and certainly it rides roughshod over us parliamentarians in that it denies us the ability to have our say. Clause 6 is one of the key clauses in this bill that affects those people who have been sidelined. 
We understand from the Government that there are 20000 general skills category applications awaiting decisions. I want to know why we have to pass legislation that forces the lapsing of those applications made before 20 November 2002 just because the Minister Lianne Dalziel and her department have been dragging the chain in allowing those applications to go through or to have some sort of scrutiny—to a greater or lesser degree. I know that many hard-working members will be well aware that applications made under those categories have often been submitted 6 months ago 1 year ago 18 months ago or 2 years ago that it takes an awfully long time for them to go through the process and that it is very rarely the fault of the applicant or the MP supporting them in that or even the fault of the consultant in those cases that it has taken so long. So why are they the ones who are penalised through this legislation? 
I will read clause 6(1): “All applications for residence visas or residence permits made before 20 November 2002 under the general skills category”—and we understand there are 20000 of those—“of Government residence policy that have not been decided as at the commencement of this Act”—and that could happen any day now—“are treated as lapsed except where as at the beginning of 1 July 2003” and then it lists exceptions to that first rule. 
I want to know why they are treated as lapsed when certainly the person to whom the application relates has been working hell for leather to provide all the information required to prove that he or she is a genuine case. Such people often work side by side with their member of Parliament they will have got the paperwork from overseas and internally within New Zealand they will have seen employers met all the requirements and jumped through every hoop and over every hurdle and I want to know why those people through blood sweat and tears with all the help they have employed—paid or otherwise—are treated as lapsed. 
I can tell members now that those 20000 people do not consider their work to have lapsed. Not a day has gone by when they have not either worried or actively involved themselves in the application process and they certainly do not consider themselves lapsed. That is why we have pointed out to Minister Dalziel time and time again that she should not be riding roughshod over due process. 
The Government tells us that there are actually 14669 applications lodged prior to 20 November 2002. The Minister might have a number of 14669 but National members of Parliament know some of those people as individuals and they do not like being just one number among 15000.