Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6797] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: In initiating this particular debate the Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel made a very provocative speech and the member who has just resumed his seat made some reference to that. But the key point was her explanation to the Committee that we need this legislation because of all the shams the crooks and all the bad dealings that are going on out there. Yet the point has been made that on the  
Assignment 
 programme she was asked the hard question straight yes or no whether she knew of any fraudulent bad practices and her answer was that no she did not. She says one thing on television when she is under scrutiny by the nation yet she comes to the Chamber and says that we need this legislation because of all the sham deals and all the crook situations that exist. 
When we analyse this bill we find it does nothing to assuage our concerns because of clause 5 which relates to validation of process. What on earth does that mean? In other words however bad something may have been however wrong however unjust by a stroke of a pen the bureaucrats can declare it to be right. Under common law we had such things as writ mandamuses. In other words if bureaucrats failed to act or failed to follow due process we could go to the courts with a writ mandamus. But the effect of this clause is that no writ mandamus could possibly succeed against it. It states that failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister—even the Minister—to process an application for a visa or permit including a residence visa or anything else is just declared to be all right no matter what mistake has been made. That is totally unsatisfactory. Then we think that perhaps there is some sort of appeal process. But no we turn over the page and lo and behold all rights of appeal have been expunged. 
Clause 5(2) states: “No appeal lies against any decision …” Then subclause (3) states that there is no review processing. So whatever one has done wrong whatever mistakes whatever injustices they will retrospectively be declared to be right and there are no rights of review and no rights of appeal. That cannot be good legislation. It is totally bad legislation. 
The Minister initially said in her speech that she first issued drafting instructions for this bill on 23 June. We made the point that that was only 6 working-days ago. She must have been up in her office listening to a wireless. She heard us challenge her came rushing down here and said: “Oh no that was just part of the bill. The rest of it was under draft long before that.” I tell the Minister that that is not the impression she clearly gave the Chamber when she initially spoke about it. It seems that this Minister is prepared to say anything if she thinks she can get away with it. 
 I would like to take up the terrible slur the Minister made against Pansy Wong. Even after being forced by the Chair to withdraw and apologise she kept grinning like some inane canary and giggling to her colleagues on the Labour benches. The Minister is constantly slurring taxi-drivers. Taxi-driving is a very necessary profession. We want good taxi-drivers. They are part of our tourist industry. We want a good class of taxi-driver. However at every turn that Minister is slamming taxi-drivers and constantly slamming cooks who are also a critical part of our tourist industry. We need good cooks. The Minister calls them hamburger flippers. She is constantly beating up on cooks and taxi-drivers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Arrogant socialists. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: One of my colleagues has made an observation about arrogant socialists and we see that so often. So often in our Parliament legislation is slammed through under urgency. It seems to be the trademark of the arrogant socialists. 
Clauses 5 and 6 require a lot of scrutiny. They are fundamental and tramp on the rights of people for review of process and for appeal about bad decisions. There are three measures that totally abrogate those rights. Firstly any mistakes declared to be valid are dealt with under clause 5(1)(a) and (b). Under clause 5(2) there are no rights of appeal; and under clause 5(3) there are no rights of review. I do not recall there ever being such bad legislation.