Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8268] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking on the title I would like to question the member who has just resumed his seat. Mr Adams was a very very good rally driver. I even competed against him. But when it comes to understanding what he has just told this Committee he has missed it horribly. He has just told the Committee that this legislation will enable New Zealand to discriminate on the basis of culture. He told the Committee that we have a certain culture here and that we want people who fit that culture. 
That is the problem with the title of this bill—the Immigration Amendment Bill. It tells us nothing of what the legislation does. When we look at it we see that the heart of this legislation is the power it gives the Minister to issue an invitation to apply for residence. Clause 6 gives the Minister that power. That power in itself gives the Minister the power to discriminate and that is why the title is totally off course. It does not capture what this bill enables. 
One way of accurately capturing what the bill does would be to have the bill entitled the “Immigration Amendment (Invitation to Apply) Bill” because one of the fundamental things the bill does is set up a system enabling the Minister to invite people to apply for residence. That is one neutral title that would be possible but from listening to the submissions at the select committee I suggest a more appropriate title might be the “Immigration Amendment (Corruption) Bill” because several key players such as the Auckland District Law Society warned us that this legislation will lead to corruption. It gives the Minister such unfettered power and it gives her officials who are already under investigation for allegedly lying in unison huge power. 
My good colleague Pansy Wong has already suggested that the bill should be the “Immigration Amendment (Asians Beware) Bill”. Again that captures the huge concern of the Opposition which is what the United Future member who has just resumed his seat seems to overlook totally. With the best of intentions maybe one could make this system work but the problem is that in politics it never works that way. In politics and in Government if we run risks of discrimination or if we run risks of murky non-transparent systems we will get corruption. One of the reasons New Zealand is free of corruption is that we have transparent systems. But if we were to bring in this kind of measure—and we heard United Future talking about using this legislation to enable immigrants to better match our culture—we would see the very dangers of discrimination. That is why another possible title for this bill is “Immigration Amendment (Discrimination) Bill”. That is not being derogatory because it gives the Minister the power to discriminate. 
United Future should think very carefully—before it supports this legislation—about that issue because its members I believe are good Christian common-sense people. But how can good Christian people consider it acceptable to say that just because some prospective immigrant’s culture is different from ours—no matter what the immigrant’s skills are or how valuable a contribution he or she could make to New Zealand—that person should be discriminated against and not be invited to apply for residence? That is what was implied by the previous contribution from United Future. I want United Future members as Christian people to think about what they have just said to the Committee about that potential to discriminate—even on the basis of beliefs. There could be a Minister who was anti-Christian and who might discriminate against people if they were fundamentalists. This legislation enables people to be discriminated against for all kinds of reasons. I am not sure whether United Future really believes that that view is good for New Zealand and good for the decent society that we hope New Zealand should be. That is why the title of this bill is totally inadequate; it does not capture what this legislation will enable this Government to do.