te Heuheu Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6780] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: Clause 2 provides that the bill will come into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. On its face that clause looks innocuous enough but in the context of what it is about to achieve it is a very serious matter indeed. I hope that the members of the public who might be listening are appreciating very clearly the serious nature of this clause. First of all as my colleagues have pointed out we are dealing with this matter under urgency. This bill was introduced just yesterday afternoon. It is proposed that the bill go through all its stages today—it will probably become law by 1 o’clock this afternoon. Once it has received the royal assent which will be over the next 1 or 2 days the rights of a whole lot of legitimate migrant applicants will have been ridden roughshod over by this Minister. 
Just 2 years ago this Minister made some very fine statements—statements that I agree with—and although they have been read out already I want to read them out again. I want the Minister to explain to members here in the Chamber—and to those people who are listening and to members of the public who value due process of law value the rights of citizens visitors migrants and value following due process and who hopefully will be as appalled as we are—that people’s rights are now being ridden roughshod over by this Minister. This is what she said in 1999 which is just like yesterday: “I do not appreciate a Government using the urgency provisions of Parliament in order to avoid due process. Due process would require the matter to be referred to a select committee for members to be properly briefed by officials and for us to be able to canvass issues as to whether the court would be likely to use the United Nations convention to override the provisions of the statute.” 
I want the Minister to take a call and explain to us how she can reconcile the fact that a bill that is to pass into law today—it commences its legitimacy today almost—with the statements she made only 4 years ago. I ask the Minister to get to her feet and answer that matter. It is all very well to sit in the chair and sneer and laugh but this is a very serious thing that she does today. Not only are we are dealing with a bill under urgency in order for it to pass through all stages in a very short space of time but we are dealing with a bill that has a retrospective impact. The Minister will shut out and ride roughshod over the rights of a number of migrants who have made legitimate applications just 2 weeks after she cunningly probably put people’s minds at rest—and I do think it was a cunning thing that she did. She indicated that she would appeal the decision of the High Court thereby I would say giving applicants a bit of respite and a reason to think: “Well we’re still in the game. We still have a chance.” But at that point as my colleague Murray McCully says a Minister would already have been drafting legislation for it to be introduced into the House yesterday—or at least had to have had the decision made in Cabinet. So that was a very cunning ploy that she used. I agree with Murray McCully when he suggests that this bill is a breach of good faith. I am waiting for the Minister to stand and justify this bill being brought in under urgency justify its passage into law within a space of 24 hours and justify why she thinks it proper to do this to legitimate applicants.