McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8265] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 My advice to the Minister in the chair is to have a nice cup of tea and a lie-down before she does herself an injury. It is going to be a long afternoon and she needs to compose herself. 
Hon Annette King 
: I think the member should take something to cheer him up. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Seeing the Minister of Health looking silly in the House always cheers me up. She would know full well that in the absence of some sensible decision-making by her the provisions contained in the bill will not do anything to stop medical practitioners coming into New Zealand being unable to work and “forced to drive taxis”—to use the expression advanced by the Minister in the chair. 
Hon Annette King 
: Fortunately we’ve fixed it. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: While the Minister of Health’s interjection is not germane to the title debate I will respond by saying that she will be under scrutiny in that area. She has dined out for a long time on the notion of inheriting somebody else’s problem. The clock has ticked well past the point where she can pretend that somebody else is responsible for the shortcomings in her portfolio. I have constituents who would like to work in the health system and are appropriately qualified to do so. I know that the inaction of that Minister has a lot more to do with those problems than any previous immigration policy. 
The bill before the Committee today the Immigration Amendment Bill—the principal Act being the Immigration Act—has very important implications for New Zealand. It covers an area where people make important decisions about their future believing that they will be dealing with a party that will behave honourably. The concerns expressed by my colleague Pansy Wong might not be concerns that the Minister will be enthralled to hear in the Chamber today. Nevertheless they are real concerns felt by real people making life decisions and believing that they are not being dealt with honourably by the party on the other side—namely the New Zealand Government and specifically the Minister of Immigration. I want to tell the Minister that this debate needs to be taken seriously. The scrutiny Opposition members will place upon her actions in relation to this bill and her subsequent actions as Minister—because this legislation will give her considerable power to make decisions—will focus particularly around whether the New Zealand Government is portraying itself as a party that does business honourably. 
In looking at the title it is important that members understand the historical context of this legislation. In many ways the contents of the bill have previously been in New Zealand law. The bill contains policies that in large measure New Zealand has seen in action during the 1980s. The powers provided by the bill are very substantially powers that have been in the hands of Ministers in the past and were found wanting. They depend in very large measure on the ability of Ministers and officials to behave honourably to read marketplaces well and to execute changes quickly and professionally. 
The reason that the previous legislation the Immigration Act was passed was that there was thought to be too much room for uncertainty and discretion in a system that depended upon Ministers and officials to make decisions. It was thought desirable that there should be greater clarity and certainty for parties whose applications were being considered by the Government.