Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8405] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank members of the House who although they did not agree with the provisions of the bill allowed it to include an out-of-scope Supplementary Order Paper. This amendment was required to address a serious situation where a High Court ruling enabled the release from detention of two individuals who were unlawfully in New Zealand and awaiting removal. The only reason they were still in New Zealand was that we were unable to obtain travel documents for them because in both cases they refused to sign applications for them. The fact that both were released without conditions is of significant concern. It occurred because there was no basis to detain them so there was no basis to impose conditions on them either. The fact that the judge said the writ of habeas corpus was issued “albeit with some reluctance” was a significant signal from the court that it was up to Parliament to fix this. 
Section 60 came into force in 1999 when National was changing the rules around removals from New Zealand. The 3-month limitation was believed to be a sufficient balance between the time needed to obtain travel documents and the amount of time someone would be detained. No one contemplated someone holding out for 3 months—effectively preventing that person’s removal and effecting that person’s freedom. I hope the lawyers who successfully argued for this loophole are satisfied at the result of their work and at what they have achieved for their clients. 
I hope that in light of the changes that have been brought in the Green Party stops saying this amendment is indefinite detention. It is not. It is a warrant of commitment that can be renewed on a 30-day basis by a court. The court retains the ability to consider exceptional circumstances even though it is the action or inaction of the individual concerned that means he or she cannot be removed. If the particular individuals concerned had signed their applications they would not be in detention—they would be gone—and if certain charges were proven maybe a woman would not be lying critically ill in hospital today. I am not blaming anyone for that; it would be wrong to do so. I would say though that members of the Opposition would do that if it were the other way round—they would blame this Government if we had been responsible for bringing in section 60. But it is not a case of fault; nobody could have foreseen that this would occur. 
 The only person in the Committee stage of this bill who behaved appallingly was the Hon Murray McCully and I use the word “Hon” with some difficulty. I spoke to him before Supplementary Order Paper 131 was moved and he said that I could trust him that I could approach him on matters like this and that I should feel confident about doing so because the National Party would support matters such as this. What did he do? We brought it to the House and yes he supported it but he spent his entire speech absolutely trying to tear strips off me for taking 3 weeks to bring a measure before the House. Well there was no earlier opportunity at which Parliament could have addressed the matter. I think his lack of graciousness is reflected by the fact that every other member in this House including the Hon Richard Prebble participated in a really good debate. Dail Jones Lockwood Smith and Pansy Wong all contributed to a really good debate and where we disagreed even that was dealt with in a very reasonable manner. Mr McCully really set himself apart as somebody who only plays politics with these matters. He does not know anything about the immigration portfolio. He has no history in it nor any knowledge of it. He does not know anything about immigration law. He has used this issue to rubbish the Government and to pursue his own political agenda and I say shame on him. 
I am very resentful of comments made by the Green Party and I want to highlight those because I would have expected better from the Greens. They say that this is a measure designed to ensure that individuals are subject to racism and selective discrimination and that the discretionary language that is used in the legislation is evidence of that. I pointed out in the Committee stage that the bill itself simply uses the language of the existing Act; the existing Act uses the language of discretion. It says that any residence visa or permit is at the discretion of the Minister of Immigration. That is the way the legislation has been written for years and years across Governments. So the bill is simply adopting that same language. 
I do not particularly like the language of discretion because it creates an impression that is not reflected in practice so I will repeat what I said in the Committee stage which is that there will be a complete review of the Immigration Act next year. I am inviting parties to play a role in that. I do want to change the language of the legislation but I also want to ensure we adopt a very sensible approach because as we have seen in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that we had to include in this legislation there are people who will say anything do anything try anything cheat anything and defraud anything to stay in this country whether or not they are entitled to. They remain the minority. The vast majority of migrants who come to this country are good decent hard-working people who deserve to be applauded in this House for their efforts and not diminished as they are by the New Zealand First Party. 
I think it is very very important for us to understand that the legislation we are putting through is entirely focused on improving outcomes for skilled migrants and for New Zealand. Settlement outcomes will now drive the skilled immigration part of the programme. 
I will finish with a quote that my colleague started to read out in the second reading of this bill. The email he was reading from continues: “I occasionally work as a volunteer at an immigrant support group just outside Wellington. That experience really brings home what the previous policies have allowed to happen: a Russian neurosurgeon who can’t get a job as anything other than the shelf-stacker at Woolworths because he can’t speak English to conversational level; accountants lawyers all manner of skilled professionals all with the same problem. I can give these people advice in their group sessions but the reality is that their residency allowed them to move to a country where they could not carry on with their lives with the same level of professional status as they previously held. It’s actually quite soul-destroying to be powerless to help these people. I would defy any commentator or journalist who is criticising your latest policy to join me at a community church in Johnsonville and look into the eyes of the 30 to 40 well-educated people who dreamt of their new life in New Zealand who can no longer hold the same status in their local communities whose egos have been shattered whose self-confidence is diminished and whose faith in New Zealand is fading.” This policy is good for skilled migrants and it is good for New Zealand.