Moroney Sue: Immigration Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Immigration Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10967. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairperson. A very good choice indeed Mr Chairperson because when it comes to debating the title of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill it causes me to internalise a complicated situation I have got to say.Hon Members: Oh!SUE MORONEY: It does. When I am contemplating the name and the title of this bill it causes me to say that I am internalising a complicated situation because I am trying to work out how I can get the phrase “ghost ships” into the title of this bill. I think if we were able to get you know “Immigration (Ghost Ship) Amendment Bill”—and I should just say so that people listening to this debate understand that I am talking about ships: s-h-i-p-s. I just want to make it crystal clear that I am talking about ghost ships.If we had that in brackets as part of the title of this bill every time that people looked at this bill when it becomes an Act they would remember the background to what actually brought this about. They would remember that during the Christmas break last year—no sorry not the one just gone but the one prior to that. I think the Minister at the time might have been Simon Bridges I think it was who is well-known for bringing before this House lots of pieces of legislation that do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights clean bill of health if you like. He is actually becoming quite known for that. It was Simon Bridges who was the Minister at the time who said: “Look look over there. Don’t look here at the National Party scandals. Look over there. Somewhere out in the world a long long way away in a land far far away there are 500 people on a boat and they want to come to New Zealand. They want to take our country over.”It was like—what is it that John Key says these days? He says: “Oh nothing to see here.” That is right. That is what he says: “Move along nothing to see here.” Well Simon Bridges was trying to copy that sort of stance: “Move along nothing to see here. Stop looking at the scandals.” I cannot remember exactly which one it was at the time but this Government is constantly embroiled in scandals. It is a bit hard to keep up but there was one going on at the time that caused Simon Bridges to do the “Nothing to see here. Move along. Look over there; way way away over the other side of the world”—and I think in fact over to Canada. That is how far away it was. There was a boat with 500 people on it apparently going via Canada to get to New Zealand because that waswhere they really wanted to come! He was trying to convince New Zealanders that this boat was on its way here and that not only would it arrive here but also when it arrived here our way of life would be threatened. Our way of life would be threatened by these 500 people. And of course we know now that this mass arrival of 500 people then turned out to be 30 people and has now been reduced to more than 10 people. So the whole sort of scaremongering thing that has gone on should be reflected in the title. I would like to get “ghost ships” in there in brackets but if I cannot do that—if we cannot actually get an amendment to get “ghost ships” in there in that way—then I would like to get the phrase “scaremongering” into the title because I think that this is exactly what this bill has been designed to do.I notice that when there have been members from the Labour Party or the Green Party taking calls the members opposite have wanted to bellow and call out and bray from their seats—well not even their own seats quite frankly but that is another matter—but they will not take a call. They will not actually get up and take a call to express their views. They will only yell across the Chamber instead of actually getting on their feet and telling us why it is that they believe that this is such an important measure that should be taking up the House’s time. But they have no way of actually being able to describe that.I join with Jan Logie in looking in wonder at a Minister of Immigration who got to his feet during the debate to sanctimoniously declare that Jan Logie was sanctimonious. I thought it was actually quite comical to see the sanctimony coming from that Minister as he sanctimoniously had a go at another member for apparently being sanctimonious. And how was that member being sanctimonious? She was being sanctimonious by pointing out the human rights abuses inherent in this piece of legislation. Well I join with her and I say that Jan Logie should wear that as a badge of honour quite frankly. If that is what it takes to be called sanctimonious—