Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6810] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: The problem with the previous speaker and his party and the Government that they support is that they do not understand that the quota numbers of those who come in are to be more liberal from today than they were 2 years ago. Two years ago the Government announced the same figures at 45000 and it had a plus or a minus alongside them. Today there are no minuses; the same criteria are all pluses. The suggestion that things will be tighter is a total misnomer. 
The second mistake they make is that they confuse immigration policy with a policy on immigrants. The first one is wise economic and social policy; the second one is how we treat foreigners who come to our country and there is a world of difference. 
The third thing is this. Recently a very very august group called the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council in the United States did a study of immigration into the melting pot called the United States. We have all heard those stories about how good immigration has been for the United States. Who are these people? They are economists demographers and sociologists. They are all leading people in their field and hardly anti-immigration. What did they find? On immigration’s effects on wages the study found that immigration was responsible for 44 percent of the decline in wages that high school dropouts had experienced between 1980 and 1994 in the United States. On immigration’s fiscal impact it found: “Immigration not only affects natives by their presence in the workforce but also affects natives through their consumption of public services. Based on census and other Government survey data the NRC study concluded that at the present time immigrant-headed households consume more in public services than they pay in taxes.” 
Those are facts not stupid blind creeping ideology from a Government that cannot run a sound economy and so it brings in artificial consumer demand then boasts how it is bringing in 1.3 percent of our gross domestic product in terms of growth. According to the Government if it were not for immigrants we would be going through a serious depression at the moment! I can see why the Minister is saying that but there never was a Labour Party in the past that would have supported that sort of nonsense. 
On cost versus benefits the study stated—these are not my words—“We can now say with some confidence that immigration is not the benefit to the economy that it was once thought to be. While the overall economic impact of immigration is modest the effect on the unskilled and on taxpayers in high immigration states is substantial. We should therefore change our immigration policy not because the negative effects are so large for the country as a whole but because they are so concentrated.” For that read New Zealand. Members should go to Auckland and look at the huge demand on health services alone in just one segment. Ten years ago there were 10 interpreters working for the Auckland health service. Today there are not 10 but 285. Once 10 years ago we had a road service in Auckland that could see a person get from the airport to the centre of town in 20 minutes. Now it takes an hour at the worst times of the day and it is getting worse by the hour. 
Members should look at legal aid services and accident compensation costs. Over there sit the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Finance and they cannot quantify anything but their feel-good feeling. All of a sudden because the polls say that less than 16 percent support them on this issue and a massive 82-plus percent do not but support New Zealand First on the issue they are panicking and have this knee-jerk reaction. What did Gareth Morgan say? He is hardly a supporter of Winston Peters or New Zealand First. He said in November 2002 that if these trends are maintained—and the policy we have been debating yesterday and today will maintain them—it could take as few as 60 years before the population is effectively totally renewed. 
Those who thought they were coming to a country with a British-Maori background with shared cultures and traditions that we have built up for the last 140 years should forget it. These people are about colonising New Zealand from without with in the main people who do not want to speak the language do not share our system of laws and do not share our cultures. Today there are 300000 people in New Zealand who cannot speak English. 
Edwin Perry 
: Labour voters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes. It is about social engineering. Mr Morgan went on to say: “Mr Peters is quite justified to point out New Zealand is looking at a social and demographic revolution.” Who gave Labour the mandate? No one. Who supports Lianne Dalziel? Nobody. Who supports the policy? 
Government Members 
: Everyone. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am talking about sane rational people I say to Mr Swain. I have not included him in it. What sane rational informed person supports this policy? Nobody but the “United League of Joyboys” who have no idea how to exercise power and a gentleman over there from Dunedin who has been promoted way above his station. 
When the Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee this year she was asked by my colleague whether she was aware of a study prepared by Waikato University. It is fascinating stuff: “Jones: Do you accept that in total 190000 including international students were approved for permanent and temporary residence for the year ended 30 June 2002? Dalziel: How much? Jones: 190000. Dalziel: No.” There is an old saying that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. She starts not even knowing the basic figures. He says again: “Do you accept that 73800 of that figure were covered by student visas and work permits?” She says—pretty typically I might add—“I have no idea what you’re talking about.” Mr Jones says: “Can I draw your attention to a well-established report?” and she says that she does not know about it. He refers to Dr Richard Bedford Professor of Geography and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) of Waikato University and Dalziel says by way of a question: “And he says they were granted permanent residence?”. Members should remember what she was asked. She began by saying that she was not aware of that study but pages later we finally get to it. She is asked again: “Are you now aware of it? Dalziel: Permanent residence and temporary entry? Yes.” 
This is no small matter. They are cancelling the applications of tens of thousands of people. There has been no consultation with anybody no select committee hearing. This is to be rammed through Parliament in the space of under 24 hours. I say to the people up in the gallery that this was once a country with a grand tradition for honouring the law and for respecting people’s rights. It distinguished us from those dictatorships and autocracies that the world once passed away from but today here is the Labour Party denying people fundamental rights denying them the fruits of a court case by retrospectively changing the law. 
I want to say one last thing on this bill. They laugh now but we have seen the first of three things that we will fix up. It will take us all the way to the next election and on election night 2005 we will have fixed up them and the issue as well.