Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) : I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee report back finally to the House on or before 10 September 2012.

People-smuggling is a transnational crime that grossly undermines a country’s sovereign right to determine who crosses into its territory. It circumvents border security and threatens the integrity of the immigration system. It also puts the lives of those who are smuggled in extreme danger. New Zealand has not yet experienced a mass arrival but attempts have been made, as has been evidenced by recent events, which I will address shortly. The bill is one component of a wider package of policy measures aimed at deterring people-smuggling. It will assist in deterring people-smuggling by making New Zealand a less desirable target. It will also enable the effective and efficient management of a mass arrival of illegal immigrants should this occur.

In introducing this legislation I would like to focus the House’s attention on three points regarding a mass arrival of people being smuggled to New Zealand. A mass arrival is possible but less likely under these changes. A mass arrival is not in the best interests of New Zealand or those being smuggled, given the safety risks. A mass arrival should be deterred, and, indeed, if it does happen, it should be managed effectively and efficiently.

We know that New Zealand has been in the sights of people-smugglers in recent years. Ten Chinese asylum seekers were trying to sail to New Zealand from Malaysia just last month. As well, we had the 90 Sri Lankan asylum seekers who were intercepted in Indonesia last year and shown on television holding up signs saying they wanted to come to New Zealand. That, indeed, illustrates the risk. Ten illegal migrants may seem like a small number, but once such an arrival has been achieved, New Zealand could be seen as a more attractive option for like-minded people.

It is not only small boats that may be involved, as Canada found out a couple of years ago when a steel-hulled freighter sailing from Thailand was intercepted off the coast of British Columbia with around 500 people on board, all of whom claimed asylum. If people-smugglers can reach Canada, they can certainly reach New Zealand. Our distance and perceived remoteness does not make us immune to such risks. We need to make sure that we properly address and mitigate those risks.

New Zealand has a sovereign right to determine who enters our country, whether as visitors, students, skilled or business migrants, or refugees under our annual refugee quota. We welcome genuine immigrants. We facilitate the entry and stay of legitimate workers, students, and visitors. We grant residence to those who have the skills, investment, and abilities to contribute positively to our New Zealand economy and our society as a whole. But although the vast majority of people who wish to enter New Zealand do so for genuine reasons, others have ulterior motives. We need border protection measures to prevent these people from entering and we need tough measures to deter groups of illegal immigrants from travelling to New Zealand.

People-smugglers do not care for a country’s sovereignty or laws, because they can make big money from other people’s desperation. They do not care about those they smuggle. Boat people tragedies in various parts of the Pacific over the last few years highlight the need for a robust regional response to people movements, refugee resettlement, and illegal migration. Ongoing illegal movements of people en masse in Asia-Pacific are not in the region’s best interests. New Zealand cannot be seen as a soft touch in the region. The Government, of course, is committed to upholding New Zealand’s obligations under international law and New Zealand’s reputation as a good international citizen. We will continue to accept 750 refugees per year through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees process. This is the appropriate way to come to New Zealand as a refugee and we expect proper immigration processes to be followed.

The bill I am introducing today balances protecting our borders and upholding our international obligations. It contains a range of measures to deter people-smuggling, making it unattractive for people-smugglers to target New Zealand, but it does not jeopardise the process for those who make a genuine claim for refugee or protection status. The Ministry of Justice has also advised that the Immigration Amendment Bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Immigration Amendment Bill will also enable officials to better manage the immediate risks posed by a mass arrival of illegal immigrants, and will streamline the complex administration of such a situation.

The bill proposes several key changes to the Immigration Act. Firstly, it identifies that illegal immigrants will be subject to the changes if they are a group of 11 or more people arriving together, all with the intention of arriving together by an unscheduled service.

Secondly, the bill allows for mandatory detention under a group warrant issued by a District Court judge for an initial period of up to 6 months, with the possibility of further detention for periods of up to 28 days or release into the community on binding conditions. Detention will enable the relevant agencies to inquire, as necessary, into the background of illegal immigrants pending decisions on refugee or protection claims. This will help to confirm identity or assess whether illegal immigrants pose a risk to national security or public safety. Although mandatory detention may seem like a strong stance to take, it will not be used for arbitrary purposes, and will be used only for as long as necessary, as decided by the District Court judge. Detention could be at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in Auckland, or a defence or correctional facility. The bill also allows for exceptions to mandatory detention where this is warranted.

Thirdly, the bill will allow the processing of asylum claims to be suspended for a group of people where, for example, information for determining a refugee or protection claim is not immediately available due to the conditions within their country, which could be, as an example, in a state of flux. These measures do not apply to unaccompanied minors, who will be dealt with under the existing processes.

The bill also streamlines various aspects of existing legislation in terms of refugee and protection claims, and appeals generally, to increase efficiency.

In addition to these changes set out in the bill, there are also going to be some policy changes. Those granted refugee or protection status as part of mass arrival will initially be granted a 3-year temporary visa rather than residence. Their status will be reassessed after 3 years, and, if their reassessment is successful, only then may they apply for residence. Those granted residence after reassessment will be able to sponsor only immediate family, which is a partner or dependent children, for entry to New Zealand rather than the wider family, such as siblings or parents, as those granted residence under refugee categories are otherwise able to do.

In conclusion, this bill sends a strong message to people-smugglers that New Zealand is indeed not a soft touch and that illegal immigrants are not welcome. The bill’s provisions make it unattractive for people-smugglers to target New Zealand, but if illegal immigrants do make it here the provisions also uphold our international obligations in terms of considering refugee and protection claims. I commend the Immigration Amendment Bill to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : Labour will oppose the Immigration Amendment Bill because it is just one big overreaction to a non-existent problem. It is a waste of parliamentary time when there are so many other important things that we should be dealing with, like the fact that unemployment has gone up again today and so many of our young people cannot find a job. This bill is being rushed through. I do not understand why it is being rushed through its first reading. It was deliberately introduced on Tuesday in an attempt to divert attention from the tawdry scandals surrounding this Government. Those tawdry scandals extend to immigration and any other piece of legislation that this Government thinks it can put up for sale to the highest bidder.

The Government is determined to divert our attention from the real issues by talking up what it believes is a populist move while, at the same time, it will not front up on the real immigration issues. Firstly, there is the secret deal done with Warner Bros, which we learnt about on Friday. We have watered down immigration rules for our film and video production industry. Despite special deals and favours to Warner Bros, this Government has done nothing to ensure that the growth of our film industry can result in New Zealand jobs. The New Zealand public have a right to know why it is necessary for Weta Digital to be seeking 369 foreign workers to come in and work for it in the next year. Goodness knows how many other foreign workers it has. The Government has bent over backwards to do special deals and special favours, and New Zealanders are not benefiting from them.

Government members also need to explain to us why there are increasing numbers of applications from employers in low-paying industries to bring in workers from overseas and pay the minimum wage. Why is that happening? Why is that acceptable in New Zealand? Does the Government think it is acceptable for Filipino nurses to be tricked into bondage as caregivers in the aged-care industry? That is people-trafficking and nothing is being done about that. I also want to know whether the Government thinks it is OK for secret deals, for secrets to be kept by Immigration New Zealand under section 61. It keeps them secret from the public so that no one can find out the reasons for the decision. The Government still has not told us why only 10 applicants have succeeded under its migrant Investor Plus scheme, and, of course, the poster boy for that scheme is none other than John Banks’ former very good friend Kim Dotcom.

This bill is a cover-up for a whole range of dodgy arrangements, including the Government’s willingness to make special rules for those with lots of money and ignore the rights of everyone else. This bill will not work as a deterrent to desperate asylum seekers, who could take the extremely unlikely decision to risk the treacherous sea journey to New Zealand. It will not stop people-smugglers in other countries who encourage them, and it puts at risk New Zealand’s reputation as a good international citizen.

The bill copies the former Australian Conservative Howard Government, which successfully divided that country over a hysterical response to so-called boat people and did that by arresting them and putting them in detention centres. I do not want to see that happen here.

The Minister of Immigration mentioned the 10 asylum seekers who had fetched up in Darwin, who, by the way, would not be covered by this bill, because it is for only 11 or more. They said they were considering making the long journey to New Zealand, the very hazardous trip to New Zealand. We worked with negotiation and diplomacy. Our officials worked with the Australian Government to dissuade those people from attempting the journey, on the grounds that it was dangerous and they would likely not succeed. That is good diplomacy and negotiation. It kept New Zealand’s dignity and it kept our reputation. But in a short space we have gone from worrying about the potential for 10 asylum seekers from Darwin coming to New Zealand, to legislating for the possible arrival of 500. How did that happen?

New Zealand is one of the most geographically isolated countries in the world, and we are never going to be swamped by mass arrivals. The regulatory impact statement from the Department of Labour actually admits that “It is not possible to quantify exactly what the likelihood is of a mass arrival occurring in the future, or when this might occur. It is also not possible to be sure about the characteristics of the people involved in any such event.” So the Government bases this bill on the assumption that 500 people would be involved in a mass arrival, when there has never been a real threat to New Zealand’s borders of 500 people turning up on a boat, seeking asylum.

Labour is not saying that we should not have a plan for the very unlikely event of a mass arrival at our borders, but it should be based on reality and the decent practices for which New Zealand has earned an international reputation. Locking up asylum seekers who are desperate to find a place of safety simply does not work as a deterrent, and Australia’s experience should tell us that. I never want to see asylum seekers in New Zealand locked up behind fences, holding up signs, going on hunger strikes, committing suicide, and becoming a political football in the way that they have in Australia.

The bill proposes a mandatory detention for 6 months, which is horrific, with the possibility of ongoing detention. That will also come at a cost to our reputation, but it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer as well. The Minister said: “Oh well, we can lock them up in Māngere.” Actually, there has been discussion about closing that centre. So the other alternative is to put them on some part of our Devonport naval base. I wonder how the member for North Shore will explain to the nice people of Devonport that they will have mass arrivals arriving at the naval base and being locked up. The regulatory impact statement says that actually more detention facilities will be needed for longer, and additional facilities would need to be commissioned and operated. So in the extremely unlikely event that 500 people wash up on our shores, we will spend money and build more detention centres, and this is from a Government that claims it is practising austerity.

Another amendment in this bill would mean that a claimant’s refugee status would be reassessed after 3 years—the Minister talked about that—with permanent residence not granted unless that reassessment is approved. The Australian Government is saying that this is similar to what Prime Minister Howard did under the Conservatives. It is similar to the temporary protection visas introduced by his Liberal-led Government. Those visas did not work there, and they will not work here. This is what the Australians are saying. The overwhelming number of people who get temporary protection visas actually have ended up as permanent residents in Australia. It is hardly a deterrent. These changes are not only an overreaction but they are probably in breach of our international humanitarian laws and our convention obligations.

New Zealand is highly regarded for its refugee policies internationally, which include taking up to 750 refugees every year through the United Nations system, and offering asylum to a smaller number of people who reach our borders in other ways and meet refugee criteria. We have all celebrated over the years Helen Clark’s decision to allow the Tampa refugees to come to New Zealand and settle here. Most people in this House will have met them at some stage. Their children are well settled and they are now working. They have been through study, and they are now working and contributing to New Zealand society in ways that we could never have imagined.

The thing about anybody who fetches up here is not to have the sort of mass process that this bill proposes. Everyone who seeks asylum in New Zealand or seeks refugee status should be considered on a case by case basis and they should not have to languish for indeterminate periods in custody because, as this bill proposes, they arrived as a group. New Zealand already has measures for dealing with people-smuggling under the Immigration Act or the Crimes Act. We have had 15 successful convictions in the last 6 years. We are part of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, and the Government is always boasting about that. There are other solutions to this problem than this ridiculous, unnecessary, diversionary bill. The Government should be spending its time thinking about the real issues that are facing New Zealand. It should be cleaning up the immigration issues and favouritism that is going on at the moment in New Zealand, instead of wasting our time.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : Today we discuss the Immigration Amendment Bill, which the last party to speak, the Labour Party, said it will oppose. It is very disappointing because members of this House would have expected most parties to agree on this, especially parties that have New Zealand’s best interests in their heart. When we look at the context of immigration, it is a very vocal and emotive subject and people have a lot of opinions on it. But essentially New Zealand survives on immigration. It is a big part of the history of our country. It is also a big part of the future of our country, as we have many migrants in our country and we have many migrants in this House, who have made New Zealand their home and have found that it has been very successful for them as a place to live.

Migration is one of those things that will be important for our region. As part of the Asia-Pacific region we will see that there will be increasing trends of migration within this region. We will see a very successful Asian regional economy on our doorstep, which will enable people to have money and then choices. With money and choices, people will look for lifestyle. New Zealand has the opportunity, I guess, to pick the best migrants from that region, but also that has some risks, because people will see New Zealand as an opportunity, as a country that has a low population, has a clean, green environment, and has a very strong social system. Our education and health systems would not be comparable to many other Asian countries. Australia has found that to be a reality. From the areas of the subcontinent and through South-east Asia many people see Australia as very attractive, because what does Australia offer? It offers a low population, a large land mass, and social services such as education and health care that are very difficult to obtain in those people’s country of origin.

Naturally there is a desire to come to New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand and Australia will be the focal points for that growing population of people who will have the ability to make that transition out of their country of origin. The question, then, for New Zealand is whether we enable people to come to New Zealand, and I do not think anybody in this House would say no, that we do not want people to come to New Zealand, because we need to have a growing population, and new people bring in new values, new histories, and new diversity to our country that add to and build this country. But we have a choice of whom we bring into New Zealand. We need to make sure that we use and exercise that choice properly. We need to be able to bring in people who will add value to New Zealand, in the sense that they have skills and are willing to make New Zealand their home and their future.

Although we have a bit of choice as a Government as to whom we allow into New Zealand and how, the individuals coming to New Zealand also have some choices. They have some choices about meeting the criteria to move to countries like New Zealand and Australia. The criteria are very simple. New Zealand and Australia will be looking for skilled migrants going forward. The policies that you see around migration are primarily based on having skills. Do you have the ability to speak English? Do you have the ability to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

DAVID BENNETT: Does the individual have the ability to provide skills to the country and also to develop New Zealand into a stronger place? When you look at that policy decision we have in migration, this bill becomes very important. It sends a signal about what New Zealand seeks, and it also sends a signal—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That we are a soft touch.

DAVID BENNETT: The member over there says that New Zealand is a soft touch, so I look forward to him supporting this bill. This bill shows that we are not a soft touch, but I do not know whether he is going to support it. He is talking about—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a dog-whistle bill.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, now it is about democracy. A minute ago it was that we are not allowed to be seen as a soft touch. This bill tightens the rules around that issue, yet the member over there will not support it. Now, tell me how that works. Tell me whether there is the degree of strength of conviction that we should see from the New Zealand First Party, a party whose name is based around issues such as this, when that member does not want to see a tightening of these rules.

The other side of this bill is that we have to take into account the many migrants who have come to New Zealand and make a lot of sacrifices to come here. The thousands of people who learn the English language, who make sure they have the skills to come to New Zealand—those people need to be treated with respect for the sacrifice they have made to make New Zealand their home. If we do not give them that reward, in the sense of their becoming New Zealand residents and citizens—for learning the English language, and bringing those skills to New Zealand—we send them the wrong signal as well. I think it is important for those migrants who have come to New Zealand to see fairness and equity within the New Zealand system, and not to see some people bypass them in the system, just because they got on a boat and came through a process like that.

When we look at this legislation we must look at the signals it will send to the migrants who are here and the migrants who intend to come here. When we look at the legislation, we look at other countries that are in a similar boat, like Australia. They have looked at this issue as something they have had to deal with. The Australians have had to deal with it as an issue right on their doorstep now. In New Zealand we do not have to deal with it right on our doorstep, as we are not as close to those regions as Australia is. But it will come. At some point it will come. If we are not prepared, then we will be in trouble, and part of being in this Government and being in Parliament is to be prepared.

Andrew Williams: You’ll blame the Christchurch earthquake for that as well.

DAVID BENNETT: And we will be prepared, and it is in the best interests of New Zealand that we be prepared for this going forward.

Andrew Williams: For the earthquake?

DAVID BENNETT: Opposition members are talking about being prepared for an earthquake. Well, if they have a crystal ball, then that would be great to see. We look forward to their supporting this legislation, rather than being contrary to it as we normally expect. This legislation is good for New Zealand because it prepares our country for any future situations that may arise. We need to have some rules and regulations in place. This bill is good for New Zealand in that it sends the right signals to those people who see New Zealand as their future. It shows that we are an open country but we are open only if you fulfil the rules and regulations—that is, if you have the skills and you fulfil the immigration rules, and you do not try to use the process in a way that is not fair to those who have made those sacrifices and those who are willing to make those sacrifices in the future. It also shows that we are a country open to migration, because that is part of our future and our history. It is very important—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s that got to do with the bill?

DAVID BENNETT: —it is important—because New Zealand was built on migration, and it is going to be a big part of our future, and we cannot discount that. We need to recognise the importance of migration in our future and we need to recognise the importance of that in regard to people who make the right choices and do the right things, and not on the basis of some kind of perception of what may be the case.

The Immigration Amendment Bill is a good bill. It sends the right signals, it protects New Zealand for the future, and we look forward to other parties voting in favour of this legislation, as they should.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : Labour opposes the Immigration Amendment Bill for the reasons that were very ably set out by my colleague Darien Fenton in her speech earlier. I will summarise the key reasons for that opposition. This bill addresses an issue that simply is not before New Zealand as a threat at the moment. It is a waste of the time of Parliament, and that is why people have legitimately asked during this debate already why we are dealing with this issue in this Parliament now. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is because of the scandals that National is facing and having to manage at the moment. “What shall we do if we are faced with scandal? We know,” say the managers of Government business, “we will come up with targeting an unpopular group, we will come up with some imaginary enemy, and we will come up with legislation that makes us look tough in dealing with them.” Well, I think we can do better than that. New Zealand is a better country than that. I thought we might have a better Government than one that was simply going to channel John Howard at his worst. But at least when John Howard was dealing with this issue, he was dealing with a real issue.

New Zealand simply does not face the threat that this bill would contend with. If anybody needs proof of that, they just need to look at the regulatory impact statement that is advanced supposedly in justification for the legislation. First of all, it contains a number of very questionable assumptions. The assumption that officials were working with, either because they were instructed to by Ministers or otherwise, is that there would be 500 people involved in a mass arrival. Let us just remember the geography here. The Minister himself in his introductory speech conceded that the recent cases involved some 10 people in Darwin who, by all learned accounts from people who have navigated from Australia to New Zealand, just had no chance of getting here given the size of their craft and the time of the year that they were planning to sail. Everybody agreed that it would be a suicide mission if they tried it, which is why they did not, and which is why we do not get arrivals of boat people in New Zealand. It is because we have a series of natural defences that just make it very difficult, if not impossible, for that sort of exercise to be contemplated, in a way that the Australians have to face a threat in reality that we simply do not.

If we want to think about further questionable assumptions, there are all sorts of strange figures in the regulatory impact statement. There is an assumed 62 percent decline rate for those who would come, and the assumption that the appeal and review process that would be invoked by all unsuccessful asylum seekers would be completed in around 18 months, but by then they would have been granted refugee or protected person status, or become eligible for deportation. But what is even more disturbing about this regulatory impact statement is the appearance throughout of the sinister words in square brackets and bold “information withheld”. Anywhere that the reader tries to get an idea of what the actual threat is: “information withheld”. Anywhere that the reader tries to gain some understanding of the real justification for this bill, “information withheld” appears in square brackets and bold.

The other problem with this legislation is that the leader of the National Party himself recently admitted that it is not necessary. In July 2011 he said that New Zealand was “ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers should one make it to our waters,”. That was in the New Zealand Herald on 12 July 2011. Apart from the scandals that beset National at the moment, we have to ask what has changed. He said: “We’ve upgraded our operating manual … in the way that we’d deal with a mass migration issue if it came to New Zealand and we’re confident that we understand our legal position. I don’t want to go into detail but all I will say is we’ve got the capability and we’ve modelled that we understand what we need to do.” He also said: “We haven’t proposed major changes at this point because we don’t think that’s necessary although we’d be in a position to do that if required.”

What also demonstrates the political opportunism at play here is the minutes of the Cabinet committee on domestic and external security. On 16 August 2010 the committee first looked at this issue, and then it got a report back from officials on 30 September 2010. Presumably, the Prime Minister in July 2011 was reporting back the fruits of that exercise—that is, no major change required, and everything is OK as it is—and yet 18 months after that committee meeting we see this legislation. This is the worst sort of legislation before the House, a waste of the Parliament’s time, and opportunism, trying to stoke up fears amongst the public that simply do not exist.

Why are we not looking at a Government doing something that would really make a difference to the people-smuggling problem? Why not do what the Prime Minister said should be done when he was in Indonesia recently? Why is it that we have a leader who is a lion overseas and a lamb at home on these issues? He said we should work with our friends in the region to target the people-smugglers themselves—the people who make enormous amounts of money offering and peddling false hope to people in desperate situations by cramming them into boats and then shipping them to Australia, which is where most of them end up. Those are the people who need to be targeted, and the way to target them is to negotiate with the Indonesians and with the Malaysians and with other Governments in South-east Asia, which is the transit route for most of the people who end up in Australia and who are targeted by a similar regime there to the one that this legislation would set up. That would not require a showy piece of legislation at an opportune time for the Government. It would not require Nathan Guy to go on Checkpoint and sound tough on a problem that does not exist. It would not allow for the sort of scaremongering against this group of people that we are seeing now, but it might actually make a real difference to the reality of the threat.

Deal with the people-smugglers. Look to those who profit—cui bono—and deal with them. Deal with them properly. Ensure that there are reciprocal agreements in place, as between New Zealand and Indonesia and Malaysia, so that there is an undertaking by the police forces of those countries and by the immigration agencies that those people-smugglers, those who really stand to gain from the traffic in human misery, are targeted, are subject to proper punitive regimes, and are hit in the pocket when they try to make massive profits from that traffic in human misery. But instead, what we see is a bill before the House that is offensive in many ways.

David Bennett: Rubbish!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: First of all—oh, “Rubbish!” said David Bennett. Well, it has Draconian penalties, including provision, simply on the warrant of one District Court judge, for mass detention of human beings. It suspends the right—the ancient right that everybody has—to go to the High Court and ask the question: “Did the lower court get this issue right?”. You have to get—

Moana Mackey: David Bennett said it’s not an ancient right.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Oh, it is not an ancient right, according to that jurist on the other side, who knows these things back to front. Well, I am sorry, but it is. It is a fundamental right for anybody. It is one of the things that makes our democracy great. The ability to go to the court at any time and ask whether or not the Government or any agency of the Government has got it right is suspended and is available only by leave under this legislation.

I am ashamed of this bill. The Minister of Immigration spoke of how good New Zealand’s reputation is concerning bona fide refugees and migrants. Once I would have agreed with him, until I recently had some personal contact with the system and saw how precarious its funding arrangements are in order to deal with people who come properly and lawfully to New Zealand, and when I saw the refugee study grant cut by the National Government, making it much harder for bona fide refugees in New Zealand to complete a tertiary qualification and properly integrate into this country.

One of the finest moments that I can recall—one of the proudest moments I can recall—about being a New Zealander was when we stood up to xenophobia and we took those Tampa boys out of the Australian system, and we saw those people become fine, upstanding members of the New Zealand community. That is New Zealand at its best, not taking this shabby leaf out of the Crosby/Textor manual. We can do better, and the Government should be ashamed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the member is seeking the call, then she must do so. I would refer her to Speaker’s ruling 25/2.

JAN LOGIE (Green) : The stated purpose of this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, is to amend the Immigration Act to enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand. The Green Party will be opposing this bill, as its purpose is opaque and it seems to contravene international and domestic human rights obligations. I would like to initially look at what we know about people-smuggling in New Zealand and at some of the principles that seem to be behind the thinking of this bill before getting into the details of the proposal.

From 2004 to 2010, 15 people were convicted of people-smuggling within New Zealand, and none of those cases, to my knowledge, involved mass arrivals. The people convicted of people-smuggling under section 98 of the Crimes Act have been treated pretty leniently by our courts, actually, with the harshest penalty in recent years being 8 months’ home detention. So that is a sign of how seriously our country takes people-smuggling—8 months’ home detention is the strongest response. Surely, if people-smuggling was an issue in this country, or even if we thought it might become one, then the most appropriate response would be to look at our identification of smugglers and our response to them, not to penalise the victims of that smuggling. It seems the bizarrest response imaginable to me. The way this is framed, to me, is a little bit like trying to deter burglars by promising to punish the people whose houses get burgled. It does not make sense. It seems to me we cannot really consider this as an intervention or a deterrent against people-smuggling, because it has got nothing to do with the smugglers.

So let us then consider some of the Minister of Immigration’s comments when he announced the legislation to see whether there are other clues to the purpose. When announcing it, he said: “The recent events in Darwin show that New Zealand is a target for dangerous and illegal mass arrivals by boat. We need to be prepared.” He has also made mention of a freighter with 500 people that made it to Canada a few years ago. Yet the Government itself stated there was no intelligence at the moment that would suggest a group of boat people is on its way. There has never been a landing of illegal immigrants in New Zealand by boat, with the journey being considered too dangerous for people-smuggling operations to attempt. Also, I would like to draw attention too to the cost of fuel. If we are talking about this dystopian future where things are going to get worse and more people are going to be coming to New Zealand, we also need to factor in the increasing price of oil, which is going to make that option of getting this far that much more difficult. Within that cost the refugees have to factor in the cost of the boat, which would be confiscated on arrival. So it would require a big freighter, like in the Canadian case, to get this far, and they would have to be able to afford that. It is not likely. Immigration figures a decade ago showed that about 2,500 asylum seekers were arriving in New Zealand every year, mostly by plane. Almost all of them were refused residency, and the numbers have plummeted, and have since flat-lined at around 250 per annum. These have been further reduced by advanced processing. The Government is not just exaggerating the risk of mass invasion by boat people; this Government is creating the idea of a risk.

I would like now to talk just a little bit more about the reality of refugees in the world, because they are ultimately the ones whom we are talking about. The world’s largest sources of refugees include countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sierra Leone, and some of the countries hosting the most refugees include countries like Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Guinea. Approximately 70 percent of the world refugee population is in Africa and the Middle East, and these people are escaping war, persecution, torture, and things that most of us cannot even imagine, and here we are drumming up a sense of them being a threat to us. It is a joke, and it is an offensive joke. Imagine yourself alone or with your family, fleeing for your life, and then being treated as a threat and a danger to the citizens of the country you had made it to. To make it to New Zealand by a boat would be an epic feat, and in fact I would go so far as to say that a few years ago, in earlier times, someone capable of such a feat would have been the subject of great books and poems. Their bravery would have given us all inspiration because of the lesson in the tenacity of the human spirit, and our ability to cope through extreme hardship. Yet this Government is choosing to demonise these people and treat them as a threat? Worldwide there are about 11 million to 12 million recognised refugees, but less than 1 percent are offered resettlement to a third country. Desperation is a natural response to that reality.

I would also just like to address the issue of the term “illegal migrants”, which has been used by the Government. This term is problematic, for several reasons. Firstly, it criminalises the person rather than the act of entering a country illegally, but also it just shows a complete misunderstanding around the reality of refugees, because international law recognises that refugees may need to enter a country without official documents or authorisation. That is part of the reality of being a refugee. Similarly, a person without status may have been coerced by traffickers, and should be recognised as a victim of crime, not treated as a wrongdoer, which is what this legislation is seeking to do. Refugees and asylum seekers and people wanting to come to New Zealand are not queue-jumpers, and they are not illegal migrants. If the Government truly wanted to address the issue of refugee desperation, then surely the most compassionate, and definitely most sensible, approach would be to improve processing of refugees, to seek to get more places for refugees to be resettled in, and to reduce the levels of war that we have in the world, so that there is less need for people to escape their countries.

Now to talk quickly about some of the specific changes in this bill, where it seeks mass detention and processing of arrivals. According to the Minister, this will enable Immigration New Zealand to be able to focus on managing the immediate risks, rather than being tied up in paperwork and clogging up the courts. You know, efficiency is good, but group detention is contrary to the fundamental concepts of law and fairness, and already Joris de Bres from the Human Rights Commission has noted that “Mandatory detention on the basis of group warrants raises issues of reasonableness and ultimately could amount to an arbitrary detention breaching section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” According to Professor Max Abbott, the director of Auckland University of Technology Centre for Migrant and Refugee Research, this is also probably a breach in international humanitarian laws and conventions.

So this is what this Government is about. It is about solutions for problems that do not exist, and a complete denial of the importance and the validity of fundamental human rights. Shame. Shame on this Government.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I take absolutely no shame in standing up and supporting this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, this afternoon. I take absolutely no shame in supporting this bill, because this is about New Zealand getting ahead of a potential problem in the future. Many of the criticisms that we have heard this afternoon, many of the concerns that have been levelled at us this afternoon, are the same types of arguments that were made in Australia in years gone past. And do you know what? If the Australian Government of the past had listened to that type of criticism and those types of concerns and done nothing, then it would have an even bigger problem than what it has got today.

The fact of the matter is that we are a nation that is desirable for people to come to. We have a beautiful country. We have natural fauna and flora, we have great seaside areas to live in, we have great environmental areas that people want to live in, we have good education systems, and we have good health systems. Naturally, people want to come and live in New Zealand, and I completely understand that. I have an electorate where half of the population was not born in New Zealand. There are a lot of migrants in my electorate, a lot of people in my electorate who have worked hard, done the right thing, and gone through the right processes to come to this country, and it is absolutely unfair on the people who work hard, do the right thing, and come to New Zealand through the right channels to see people having the opportunity to come here illegally, and getting fast tracked and jumping through the queue. Sure, we may not have a huge number of them coming just yet, but should we sit back and do nothing? Should we just say: “It’ll be OK. We won’t deal with it and we won’t get ahead of the issue, because this may never happen.”? The fact of the matter is that people will want to come here. This happened in Australia. We are very close to Australia. Our nearest neighbour is Australia, and they do have this problem. If we sit back and do nothing, then we will have exactly the same problem.

It is quite interesting to see. I disagree with a lot of what the Green Party stands for and what it believes in, but you have to say that at least it opposes things on principle. The other guys over the other side actually do not know why they are opposing it. They just oppose things for the sake of it. They are just opposing it because they are the Opposition, and they think the only thing they can do to get some attention is to oppose things. They seem to think that we have a case here where we are trying to avoid distractions. Well, their leader needs some distraction, because he is just not getting anywhere at all. If they are wanting to accuse us of trying to avoid distractions, well, they are looking for some relevance for their leader. Where has he been? What has he had to do in the last few weeks? Who is David Shearer? Most people around the country do not know who he is. So I do not accept the criticism they have made, because they have got a far bigger problem on the other side.

It is depressing to hear the Opposition’s comments today. It is depressing to hear Opposition members say that we should not have this legislation before the House, because there is no problem. We need to show that New Zealand is not going to be a soft touch. We need to show that good people who work hard to come here through the proper channels, who do follow the law, and who do recognise New Zealand’s law should be rewarded. They should not be in a position where people who can queue-jump do so.

I perfectly accept that there are a lot of people in the world who have had a lot of bad things done to them. We cannot get away from that; it is a fact. But we are not a country that can take everybody. We are not a country that can sit back and accept every person who has had something bad happen in their life. Sure, the people who come here on boats, the people who try to get through the system without going through proper processes, and the people who seek asylum by coming here on boats do have a lot of genuine problems that they have had to face in their lives. But should they be fast tracked over and above the good people who go through the proper process?

Moana Mackey: We haven’t had any.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Well, look at the heckling from the other side. She has got nothing interesting to say. The Opposition has had no real reasons to be opposing this bill. It is just opposing it for the sake of opposing it. That is all it does. It wants to know why it is so low in the polls. It is because all it does is just oppose things for the sake of it.

Darien Fenton: Shame.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I take no shame in standing in support of this bill, Darien Fenton. You know, people often ask me what Darien Fenton is like. I say: “She is a unionist, but she is actually a nice person.” I am starting to change my mind after this, Darien.

This is legislation that we need to get ahead of the game, to make sure we are prepared, and to make sure New Zealand is not seen as a soft touch. We will in the future have problems if we do nothing. The Opposition wants to see nothing done. It does not want to tackle the problems that New Zealand has and potentially will have in the future. This is a Government that wants to get ahead of the game. I congratulate Nathan Guy and thank him for bringing this legislation to the House. I am looking forward to the select committee process.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a former Minister of Immigration I take offence at several of the references in that speech. The first is to queue-jumping, which does not apply—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! If a member has a point of order, he should bring it up at the time that it is said, not after the event.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : Sometimes you hear a new member rise in the House who is capable of assembling an argument that is soundly based and who is aware of the facts, and, frankly, the political system is advantaged by it. Sad to say, that last speech, by Jami-Lee Ross, was not one of those occasions.

New Zealand First’s immigration policy is one that is planned, that is focused, that is in New Zealand’s economic and social interests, and that is aware that we already have here significant numbers of unemployed, homeless, and sick people, whom we at the last election were required to have regard to. The second thing about New Zealand First’s immigration policy is that every political party in Asia—no matter where you go; all the way to Turkey—supports the principles behind it. Just in case anybody is going to shout words of xenophobia and racism, you cannot find one political party in any part of Asia, all the way to Turkey, that is not in line with New Zealand First’s thinking on this matter.

The Immigration Amendment Bill was pulled out of National’s sleeve as a decoy for the scandal that is going on in respect of Epsom and John Banks. That is why National did it out of left field, in the same way as it announced at about the same time a change of access to student loans. You can see there is no research behind this bill. There is no hard-core work behind it, and National wants us to come out and support it in what is purely a dog whistle.

Let me tell that last member who was on his feet that on any given day right now—go and check with the Minister of Immigration—there are 20,000 overstayers in New Zealand. There are 20,000 overstayers in an age of computerisation where, not manually but in terms of technology, you can instantly know who has not left. So what National is running is a total circus in immigration at the moment. It has no idea who is here, what they are doing, and why they are here. So do not get up and tell us you have got a bill preparing for the future when the face of the future is with you now. You have got massive numbers of overstayers in this country—most of whom, I might add, are white, not Asian, not Polynesian, and not Melanesian—and you do not know who is here.

And then you have got a man called Kim Dotcom, who paid $10 million in respect of Government bonds.

Andrew Williams: How much?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: $10 million. He bought his way into the country, with a criminal conviction. How on earth he has survived the—to put it in ordinary terms—fat index factor, which is required to pass the health certificate, is beyond me. But there he is, 26 stone of him, in this country because, for the National Party, assets and placement in this country are for sale. It is a disgraceful policy without one shred of principle at all. Now it has pulled this out of its sleeve because the ACT Party is in trouble. Take this legislation back to where it came from and do it properly.

New Zealand will be under international scrutiny if and when refugees start landing on our shores, and if they can make Canada they can certainly make New Zealand. It is a shorter reach, from Australia, for them to get here than to go to Canada.

Jami-Lee Ross: Then support our bill. Support it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no. We are not going to support a shibboleth. We are not going to support an exercise in deception. We are not for dog-whistle legislation. We are for real policy. If you cannot tell me why 20,000 overstayers are here—if you cannot tell us why 20,000 overstayers are here—then you have no plan at all in respect of this legislation.

Let me ask you this very simple question. Where is your detention facility? You have not got one, have you?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Gerry’s place.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Gerry’s place. You might have one, Mr Assistant Speaker, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Don’t bring me into the debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know; I appreciate that, Mr Assistant Speaker. That is the last thing I wanted to do. Where is National’s detention centre, to go with its much-lauded bill in the House today? What is the answer to that question? Not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, because there is no detention centre to back this legislation up. But National wants to look tough just in case a boat arrives and it can say that all the rest of the parties did not support it. One more time: where is the detention centre that goes with the detention policy?

Hon Member: Devonport.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, Devonport. That is not a detention centre. You can just walk out the door when you feel like it. That is not what a detention centre looks like in any part of Asia, or in any part of the world. Does New Zealand really want a Christmas Island type of detention centre run by Serco, which is currently dealing with mass hunger strikes in Australian detention centres? Remember who Serco is? The National members should, because it also is the private prison contractor for the Mt Eden prison. In case you just did not know, Serco is not covering itself in glory running a private prison, either. It is having some real problems, and these will be coming out over the next few weeks. But that is the point. Where are the policy and the structure to back up this statement in the House? No doubt National will go around and bore the chambers of commerce and the Rotary clubs witless, saying “We have got strong policies to meet any contingency.” No, it has not. It has just got a statement that it is doing something, and it is hoping that nobody will notice.

We say that if you are going to have legislation, then you need to have full impoundment facilities, both in respect of trained officers and also in respect of facilities themselves. But let me ask you this question. How can you even claim to have an immigration policy or control policy when your customs borders are understaffed massively? Sometimes when there are two boats in at the Auckland harbour and planes are coming in, they have a shortage of dogs—one dog to three handlers. There are the handlers, but no dog.

Jami-Lee Ross: Send his caucus.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Pardon?

Jami-Lee Ross: Send your caucus.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What did he say? Actually, the Labour member whom he was admiring really has to be—

Jami-Lee Ross: No, I wasn’t admiring.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Labour member whom he was admiring must be seriously concerned now. Because if a guy like that admired me, I would be in trouble. So would my caucus.

My point is we all know that our customs facilities are massively understaffed. We have not got trained animals. All sorts of things are going on. Now we have got a threat—and it is a real threat—that a boat will make this place, will make New Zealand one day, and here National has got a piece of legislation that is not backed up by the impact statement document. This impact document says: “A ‘mass arrival’ for this purpose means an arrival by a substantial group of people (by sea or air); not on a craft that is providing a scheduled international service;”—I do not know why that is of importance—and “not as a crew or passengers on a vessel that is travelling to New Zealand in the ordinary course of business.” Frankly, that is the kind of business these people-traffickers are engaged in. That is their ordinary course of business. That is what they specialise in.

So, in short, you have got here a piece of legislation that is without any rhyme or reason, without any structure, and is probably compellingly best imaged by the people National has put up to speak on it.

Jami-Lee Ross: You’re up. I’m so hurt. I’m hurt.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I am speaking against it. National put the man from Waikato up, and he gives us a story about the whole world wanting to come to New Zealand.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “Cue Ball”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. He is for mass immigration. He is. This is despite the fact that this country used to be No. 2 in the world when we had a seriously focused immigration policy, and brought people here whom we needed, not those who need us. That is our difference. That is the difference between our policy and that Government’s policy. Happy to have people who cannot make it to hospital, cannot get treatment, cannot get jobs, cannot get homes, and here National is, putting up a policy that it says will prepare us for any contingency.

You might call it the Maginot Line policy—the Maginot Line policy that it has got. So in come the Germans, straight around the Maginot Line, and history is repeating itself. Here they are. National has got a bill for detention of 10 or more people, excepting that it has got no place to put them. And if 500 arrived, it would have no idea what to do with them.

This is a party that once let over 234 people out of detention when they had TB, because it said they needed to be reunited with their families for Christmas. Does everybody forget this? That is the National Party’s record, time and time again—20,000 overstayers, and it has got no idea who is here. Frankly, this bill is a total waste of time and New Zealand First will not support it.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : What an opportunity, one would think, to follow in the speaking order two political luminaries, Charles Chauvel for Labour and the Rt Hon Winston Peters for New Zealand First. What an opportunity to listen as they match themselves, blow for blow, riposte and counter-riposte, the sharp exchange of finely honed arguments against policy perception, but no! No! All we had from Charles, sadly, was a party political diatribe against National taking sensible and prudent legislative steps towards a likelihood of mass arrivals of illegal immigrants.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is no one in this House called Charles. Perhaps Sir Charles or the honourable Charles and his full name, but not just Charles. We cannot lower our standards here any more.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] No, I am dealing with the point of order. The member is correct. I know that the member in future will abide by the rulings. Members are called by their full names.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I am very happy to do that, Mr Assistant Speaker. Charles Chauvel is a person who does not—I do not think—lose any standing through simply being known as Charles, but, as the Rt Hon Mr Winston Peters would prefer, I will refer to him as Charles Chauvel. But all we heard from Charles Chauvel were the groans about taking legislative steps towards the likelihood of mass arrivals of illegal immigrants. I have no doubt that Mr Chauvel would also be one of the first to say that we are unprepared, once the arrivals do occur, if we have not got this type of legislation under way.

Then we heard from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—a person who is, I trust, immensely proud of his Scottish ancestry, as we should all be proud of the genetic mix that our human bodies glory in. But what did we hear from Mr Peters? We heard about Epsom, John Banks, and student loans, and we heard a moan over overstayers. He said: “You don’t even know who they are. Mind you, they are not Asian, they are not Pacific, and they are not Māori.” So—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, they could hardly be Māori, could they?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I do not know about that, but let us talk about Māori migration. There is a bigger Māori migration now to Australia, which is larger than the first one that occurred during the period of the Labour Government—

Hon Members: Oh!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —that occurred during the period of the Labour Government—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the latest immigration figures from Immigration New Zealand, showing 1,000 people a week are leaving this country—it may reinforce the member’s point that he has just made—under his Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is an interruption of a member’s speech. It is proper that you can ask for leave, but I just would have thought that at the end of a speech, you might want to seek leave then. But you have sought leave and it is proper that you can do that. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will certainly lead to disorder if a member of this House can get up and accuse the Māori people of being both boat people and overstayers when they have been here 1,000 years.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): These are debatable points—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh no, it’s not. What?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. In the course of this debate there will be, I am sure, some robust debate.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I do not actually expect too much in the way—and I do no think any other member of the House will expect too much in the way—of general courtesy from some of the speakers who raise points of order. We are not going to be particularly upset by them. Mr Cosgrove, we love you anyway—we love you anyway.

But back to the speech from Mr Winston Peters. In fact, the whole speech was a shibboleth, because it came through with no substance. It was only towards the end that he started to cite what he thinks should be included in this type of legislation. I would suggest to him that a modicum of thought will show that, in fact, the points he has raised are there and he would do well to support the bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, in its entirety, because this bill has a number of key messages. It takes a firm stance on illegal immigration ventures. We continue to work with our international partners on combating people-smuggling, which must be one of the filthiest trades that occurs in the world today. They have no regard for the people whom they allege they are trying to help, and they take large amounts of money from them.

Exception was taken to the term “queue-jumpers” by one of the members opposite, who wished to remind us that he had once been a Minister, but that is, in fact, a proper term to use when people are pushed in front of genuinely needy refugees. The Government’s overall package of changes is firm but fair and it sends a strong message that New Zealand is not a soft touch. The changes are compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and New Zealand’s international obligations.

The reality is that mass arrivals of illegal immigrants are occurring. We heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters say that Canada is a target. New Zealand is closer. It will occur. We owe it to the country and we owe it to genuine migrants to be prepared. This bill will do that, and that is why I am very proud to support it. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : The Immigration Amendment Bill is not about immigration. This bill is a distraction. It is a badly thought-through piece of legislation that has been thrown on to the Order Paper at this moment in order to deflect attention from some of the Government’s current headaches. That is why we have seen today the withdrawal from the Order Paper of the pieces of legislation in the name of John Banks, and we now have this inadequate and ill-thought-through piece of legislation, which is designed to address a problem that we clearly do not have.

Labour opposes this bill for a number of reasons. We recognise at the outset that human trafficking is one of the most despicable activities that human beings can engage in. We recognise that human trafficking requires coordinated intelligence from around the globe in order that it be defeated, and that it be defeated in the places where it starts, not in the places where the poor victims finally fetch up.

We need to ensure that New Zealand is not a soft touch, but we need also to balance our reputation for compassion and neutrality in these matters, and this legislation is inadequate on every count. The United States, for example, has a special visa category, which is called the victims of human trafficking visa. The United States has a process for addressing the problem. Our Minister of Immigration, who has brought this bill in—New Zealand’s Minister, not the Labour Party’s, clearly, by any stretch of the imagination—just this week had dinner with the Secretary of Homeland Security for the United States, Janet Napolitano. I would have thought he would find that out. In the course of conversation he might have discovered that there is a visa category for victims of human trafficking. Surely that is a place to start, not an asinine piece of legislation that says that more than 10 people is a crowd, and that we will prevent any mass invasion on our shores of more than 10 people—which is a crowd—coming from the most oppressed, the most impoverished, and the most needy parts of our neighbourhood.

So simply on humanitarian grounds this legislation is inadequate. If the Government wants to deal with human trafficking then say so, and do not get an inadequate Minister of Immigration to put up an inadequate piece of legislation. This does not deal with human trafficking; this is a knee-jerk, scaremongering piece of law that in no way enhances New Zealand’s reputation, and in no way addresses the need for international cooperation in order to lessen, reduce, mitigate, and get rid of human trafficking.

The truth of the matter is that we do not have a problem at this point. And even if we were to safeguard against this happening in the future due to all of those people who are the victims of human traffickers getting highly sophisticated pieces of naval equipment that enable them to navigate their way from the Middle East and Asia to Auckland, then we need to make sure that we are starting in the right place, and this law is not the right place. The people we see on our television screens who are the victims of human trafficking come in boats that can hardly make it from Indonesia to the tip of Australia. They cannot even make it across that narrow strait. They sink, lives are lost, and they sell everything they have in order to pay exorbitant amounts to human traffickers who have no interest in whether these people live or die. So they are sent out on rust buckets—or perhaps Mr Banks’ cabbage boats; I do not know, but that is about the size of it. They are sent out on these vessels and they perish. To say that we are at imminent risk—so imminent that this piece of legislation has to be introduced today—of an invasion of boat people is a complete nonsense.

What we have in the regulatory impact statement is the following statement in the section about status quo and problem definition: “Recent experience in Canada confirms that a mass boat arrival in New Zealand of up to 500 people is now a real possibility.” That captures my attention. And then what do we have? “[Information withheld].” I am sorry, but if we are to debate this bill intelligently, information should not be withheld from this House. If people have been able to make it in rust buckets from somewhere in Asia to Canada, and on that basis we know that they are also setting sail for New Zealand, then let us have the information. But, quite frankly, if they fetched up in Canada, they took the wrong turn. If they fetched up in Canada, where is the link that says we are imminently at risk? There is no evidence. The Minister has failed to produce it, and what we have got is a piece of legislation that damages our reputation.

Let me go on and quote another bit from the regulatory impact statement: “500 people arriving and claiming asylum would be costly and challenging to manage.”—yes, I agree with that—“Currently only about 350 claims for refugee status are received annually, and about 85 percent of these claims are made by people who entered New Zealand lawfully.” We are not even taking the people we should be taking. We have an allocation, a quota, of 750 refugees per annum. We are doing about 350. There is capacity for us to take more of the right people—the people whom we, with all the privileges and advantages that we have in this country, ought to be taking to assist, to rehabilitate, and to become functioning human beings again.

This legislation, with its inadequate, un-thought-through, ridiculous provisions, quite frankly, is an affront to any intelligent immigration policy. But worse than that, it will do damage to our international reputation. We took those boys from the Tampa—that Norwegian vessel that picked them up—and years on they are contributing members of our society. We take Burmese refugees; they become contributing members of our society. We are a long way off the non-existent problem that this stupid piece of legislation purports to address. There is no more profound waste of Parliament’s time than a piece of legislation that addresses a problem that does not exist. This should be turfed out on its ear, and the National members who have spoken in favour of it to date should go back, look over their Hansard, and be ashamed of the position they have adopted. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) : I am looking forward to looking back on my Hansard entry and reflecting on the importance of this necessary piece of work, the Immigration Amendment Bill. It is always very easy to sit and moralise and talk about compassion and so on. I think that if one was to actually look at the etymology of the word, one would see that “compassion” means to suffer with, and I think I have suffered with my colleagues, so far, from the speeches from the Opposition members as they have tried to deride this simple but necessary piece of legislation.

We live in a changing world. We live in a changing global environment. This piece of legislation is a prudent and timely response. It is a statement that is ultimately about reducing harm. If there has been one part of commonality, it is the concern across the House at the harm that is done by people-smugglers, individuals, or whatever who are trying to make their way outside of the normal process into this country.

But, you see, it is wrong and it is reckless to encourage people to risk their lives to come to New Zealand. It is reckless, and those who oppose this legislation are in some ways tacitly supporting that recklessness. For New Zealand, we, through this piece of legislation, do not want to give the impression to any person that they can enter this country without any consequence or with success.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the reference—and that, again, as a former immigration Minister. The suggestion that members on this side of the House and I personally would be supporting that kind of practice is ridiculous, as is the rest of the member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): These are debatable points, and each party has the opportunity to rebut what is being said. This is a point of view of a National member and it is totally in order, and I will ask Simon O’Connor to continue.

Hon Member: Touchy today.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Very much so. Many, many adjectives have been thrown across the House. I think “asinine” was one that I heard earlier, as we move further up the alphabet towards the letter “R”, but, you know, we just sort of move on. So we are back here about this whole industry of allowing people to jump the queues, to sort of move illegally into New Zealand. I come back to what I said at the start. This bill is about minimising harm. That is a principle that is incredibly important, I am sure, across the entire House. And so this bill is an important and useful tool for managing this potential issue.

We have heard that there is no problem, though. We have heard from different parts of the House that there is no problem and that this is not going to happen. Well, this is not a solution without a problem. This bill, they say, is an overreaction, and it is ineffective. They do not call it dangerous. They do not say that we are going down the wrong path. No, they even call it a waste of time. Yet, of course, they have wasted much time debating from the other side of the House against this.

You see, this is very short-sighted—very short-sighted. There is nothing like not reacting to a problem until after it has occurred. Labour wants us and other parties to put up a fence on the cliff after someone has fallen off it. It is very Labour—let the problem develop, tinker with it, and then claim to fix things. You see, this party is about anticipating issues and making a very clear statement of what is appropriate and what is not. It is not appropriate for people to jump the queue to enter into this country.

We have a range of avenues for people to enter into this country already. We have a whole panoply, if you like, of options. We also have, as has been noted on the other side of the House, the refugee quota, and there is space there. There is space there for people to come into this country, continuing through the refugee quota. We have that opportunity. If people wish to pursue that though the avenues they have, from the countries that have been mentioned, there are processes for that. But what members opposite are encouraging here is “first in, first served”. They are saying: “Don’t follow the process. Don’t follow the rules. If you make your way here, we’ll just allow you to jump the queue.” That is just not appropriate.

This is a developing and potential problem for the future. I am not saying that there are piles of people coming in here right now, but this Government is about anticipating where the future goes. We are not looking at this 50 years ago. This is a developing issue for this country and for the world. I was reading The Economist a bit earlier, and it was saying that there are more than a million people who have been crossing the boundaries, be it into America or into the European Union.

This is not a small problem. New Zealand exists within that global community and needs to put up and make a very clear statement that there are processes by which to enter this country. We put through a manner of law in this bill to manage that, which is entirely and completely appropriate. As I said before, we have these avenues, and I think this bill makes it very clear that that is the appropriate way for people to enter this country. On that point, I will end.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell with a minute to go.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I find it a bit rich that Simon O’Connor finished his speech by talking about the rule of law in New Zealand when we all know that this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, has been brought in this week as a dog-whistle diversion in an attempt—in the way that the Australians do on a regular basis—to divert the attention of the public away from the goings-on of the ACT member, John Banks.

Jami-Lee Ross: Go back to TradeMe.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Here he goes again. The poor man’s Paul Quinn is interjecting. What is his name? Lee-Jami Ross. Lee-Jami Ross, the poor man’s Paul Quinn, is interjecting. We have lost Paul Quinn—

Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the honourable member is well aware of the correct name of our honourable colleague here.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am actually not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Just hang on. We had this before. We actually like to hear the names of who the speakers are, so I just ask members to respect the courtesy extended and call members by their full names.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Can you remind me?

Hon Member: Jami-Lee, not Lee-Jami.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sorry, Jami-Lee Ross, not Lee-Jami Ross. I apologise to the member. The point that I was making is that Paul Quinn made better interjections than that member, and he ended up so far down the list that he got dropped.

This is a dog-whistle bill. I spent some time as a Minister on the committee that looked at these matters. We saw very carefully what the threats are, and the threats are pretty well summarised: “We’ve upgraded our operating manual … in the way that we’d deal with a mass migration issue if it came to New Zealand, and we’re confident we understand our legal position. I don’t want to go into detail but all I will say is that we’ve got the capability and we’ve modelled that we understand what we need to do. We haven’t proposed major changes, because we don’t think that’s necessary …”. I agree with that. Do you know who said that? John Key. John Key said that not 1 year ago. He was telling the truth then, and is it not a pity that some of the people opposite did not listen to him before they got their dog whistles out and started blowing them?

We know what the story is. People do not come here on cabbage boats, the way that John Key—John Banks, sorry. I am mixing them up now. They are so far into each other’s pockets it is hard to tell what the story is. The way John Banks describes migrants to New Zealand is as people who come in cabbage boats. Well, that is insulting. That is absolutely insulting, but we know that those boats hardly make it from Indonesia to Australia. We know that people drown all the time from those boats. We know that people are rescued from those boats all the time between Australia and Indonesia. There is not a snowball’s chance in Hades of those boats making it to New Zealand.

The Prime Minister has had those briefings. The Prime Minister knows what the truth is, and we here also understand what politics is all about. It is the Australian Liberal approach to politics: if you are in trouble, throw a bit of muck. Pick on the brown people—pick on the brown people. And that is the approach that National is taking with this legislation, because that is its normal approach when there is trouble. It does not matter whether it is the days of Muldoon, when it started the dawn raids. National was in trouble in those days, so what did it do? It went and raided Polynesian homes. Well, it is not quite as politically acceptable to do that now. National is slightly more politically correct. But what it is doing here is trying to raise a non-existent brown-Asian threat in New Zealand, and it is raising it in an attempt to avoid the resident of the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong—at whatever price he paid, and whoever arranged it. I will make it clear: it was not a cabbage boat; it was a plane that he went on. But what is also clear is that he got a discount. He said yesterday he did not. Today he admits getting a discount. Therefore, what is happening is a diversion from the activities of John Banks.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : As a great-grandson of boat people, I rise to address the Immigration Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is yet more sleight of hand from a Government that is increasingly desperate to distract the New Zealand public. The Minister of Immigration, on introducing the bill today, said that its purpose is to streamline the existing legislation. In fact, the bill is a tough new immigration measure to prepare for boat people who do not exist in our waters. This is not the first time the Government has put political expediency ahead of principle, but it is one of the more egregious examples—an affront, to cite Maryan Street.

Consider first off the international legal dimension. The bill applies to “a mass arrival group”, defined as a group of more than 10 people who arrive in New Zealand essentially on the same craft. The Race Relations Commissioner says the changes in the bill “threaten New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and potentially lack compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” How is that? He says: “Our international obligations under the convention are clear. New Zealand must protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in New Zealand, regardless of how or where they arrive, and whether they arrive with or without a visa.” The reference to group warrants contravenes the principle that asylum cases ought to be treated individually. The Refugee Council of New Zealand says: “Each case is an individual matter, and entire groups of people cannot be illegally placed in detention on the basis of being a member of a group. This would be a fundamental breach of human rights.”

We just heard about asylum seekers being described by Government leaders here as having arrived on cabbage boats. As a New Zealander, as a New Zealand diplomat in Thailand during the 1980s, I had a bit to do with Cambodian boat people on Thai beaches, and I find that offensive.

Look at the definition of “risk” that has been entered into the bill. The bill’s stated motivation is that New Zealand faces “an ongoing risk of a mass arrival of illegal immigrants.” Defining such arrivals as “risk” is a problem. It securitises vulnerable people in the form of refugees. Defining asylum seekers as illegal immigrants is also problematic. Neither seeking asylum nor being a refugee is an illegal activity. The bill defines people as illegal before they are so.

Making New Zealand a “less desirable target”, as the Government has said in explanation, is wrong, too. New Zealand should be desirable to refugees and asylum seekers as a place that upholds human rights. Even the very use of the word “target” securitises the relationship between New Zealand and asylum seekers.

What, then, should the Government be doing? If the Government is worried about refugees arriving on boats, it should do more to address the reasons that people want to. Last year the UN Security Council defined climate change as a potential threat to international peace and security. If this Government is worried about a mass arrival of refugees, it could do more to combat climate change. The Government says “We need to deter them before they take to the sea.” If we are to take action, it should be by working to ensure that the appropriate channels for refugees to take are workable, usable, effective, and in line with international law. New Zealand’s strong reputation as a global citizen could be put in question by the Government’s immigration crackdown.

John Key appears to be taking tips straight from John Howard in demonising asylum seekers, yet some of us in this House had mothers who were children during the European Holocaust, and who ended up in New Zealand as refugees. Their mothers may have had aunts who fled to Britain and purchased a marriage of convenience. They may have paid for the vows taken, then walked out of the registry, parted company, and never seen each other again. Such acts became the basis for family reunification. Now, in the context of such a dramatic and compassionate history, what is this Government doing a century later? It is demonising the 21st century refugee. I ask the Prime Minister what the difference is between a marriage of convenience for refugeehood and family reunification, and a boat trip. Have some compassion. Show some statesmanship just this once. Do not be dragged down by Australia. Have your Government act as a responsible global citizen. And shame on you, if you do not.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) : As we draw to an end this first reading debate on the Immigration Amendment Bill, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to support the bill and to support it with vigour.

We are a very desirable part of the world. We are one of the world’s most favoured nations, and we live in a global environment where there is no shortage of desperate people living in desperate circumstances. They are living lives that they want to remove themselves from because of those desperate circumstances. There is no shortage of despicable people—despicable people—who would seek to trade in human misery. They are happy to smuggle people around the world in the most offensive and miserable circumstances. We must stand, as a responsible international citizen, to ensure that they cannot and do not prosper.

So this piece of legislation, this very good and wise piece of legislation, is designed to ensure that we are prepared for the onslaught that may yet come. I hear voices on the Opposition benches and we have heard them during this debate so far today. We have heard from people who would be the first to criticise if this legislation were not in place and we were to find ourselves being swamped by people-smugglers who were bringing in the desperate, the poor, and the impoverished, who have very few choices. Because we live in this desperate world, the responsible thing we must do is be prepared, because this country is such an attractive destination.

As I have listened to this debate this afternoon, I have heard members from the Opposition and the Green Party talk in very high-handed and mighty tones about all sorts of things, except the protection of what this country values most of all, which is its border. We value our border because it is such a wide border. It is a border that has until recent times been protected, largely due to our position on the globe. Distance has, for our trade environment, been a great burden, but, in terms of protecting our border, distance has actually been our greatest protection. But these days, with modern science, innovation, and engineering, there is the capacity for very, very sophisticated vessels to arrive on our shores laden with the desperate and the poor, who are the customers and the victims of people-smuggling. It is this legislation that we must support in order to ensure that that cannot and does not happen. This is the sort of legislation that Australia should have been considering many years ago. The arguments we have heard today are the sorts of arguments we probably heard from people who opposed that sort of thing back then, and who now have lived to rue the day.

We find that people-smugglers today are well resourced, well funded, and well organised. They will leave no stone unturned in terms of plying their evil trade. They have access to sophisticated technology. They have access to sophisticated steel-hulled vessels. They can, and will, make the journey to our shores. We must use this piece of legislation as a deterrent to people-smuggling to ensure that their filthy, evil trade cannot succeed in our part of the world. This piece of legislation will enhance our ability to do exactly that—to deter people-smuggling. We need to make that option as unattractive as possible so that those people will not seek us out as a soft touch.

New Zealand takes a firm stance on illegal immigration ventures, and we will continue to do so. Queue-jumpers should not be able to push in front of people who are genuine refugees and asylum seekers. We adhere to, and respect, the process that we have signed up to as a responsible member of the international community. We have an obligation—an absolute obligation—to ensure that that is true. As we conclude this debate, I am speaking today very much in support of the legislation, and I endorse and commend it to the House.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 September 2012.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill be now read a second time. I also move that the House take note of the Commerce Committee’s report on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill.

Global business is becoming increasingly complex with the growing interaction and collaboration between businesses under multiple jurisdictions. This bill seeks to authorise the Commerce Commission to assist equivalent overseas regulators in the enforcement of competition and consumer laws. One of the key underlying principles of the bill is reciprocity. If the commission is able to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators, this will provide the opportunity for overseas regulators to do the same. Over time, this should promote deeper cooperation efforts between the Commerce Commission and overseas regulators, which would promote a more effective and efficient investigation and enforcement of competition and consumer laws.

The bill fulfils part of New Zealand’s duties under the single economic market framework jointly announced by Prime Ministers in August 2009. Australia enacted legislation in 2007 to allow enhanced cooperation between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the ACCC—and overseas regulators. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill is our equivalent legislation.

I would like to acknowledge that this bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government under the former Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I understand that at the time it enjoyed, and I hope it continues to enjoy, broad cross-party support. The bill will serve to strengthen and build upon New Zealand’s existing cooperation and coordination efforts with Australia in the effective application and enforcement of competition and consumer laws.

The bill amends the Commerce Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to enable the Commerce Commission to use its statutory powers to assist the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or other overseas regulators with investigations. It sets out how the commission may share compulsorily acquired information and provide assistance to regulators from Australia and other countries. Importantly, the bill has safeguard provisions requiring the commission to take specific public interest matters into account before responding to requests for assistance from overseas regulators to ensure that assistance is provided for a proper purpose.

A Supplementary Order Paper to the bill has been tabled to amend the Telecommunications Act in order to promote enhanced cooperation between the Commerce Commission and overseas regulators in respect of telecommunications investigations. This would enable the commission to participate in investigations into cross-border telecommunications markets, such as those related to international mobile roaming. The amendment would reflect the powers held by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in respect of its telecommunications work, and would also enable New Zealand to further reciprocate the assistance that Australia can provide to us. I intend to move Supplementary Order Paper 26 during the Committee of the whole House stage. I note that because of changes to the Standing Orders, the amendment set out on this Supplementary Order Paper, which was tabled before the last election, can now be considered without leave of the Committee of the whole House.

At the first reading of the bill the Commerce Committee was invited to consider several issues regarding the bill’s application, and I am pleased to see the committee has taken these matters into account and recommended amendments to the bill. More specifically, the committee has recommended that regulator to regulator cooperation agreements should be allowed as an alternative to intergovernmental arrangements. I consider that this will provide flexibility to decide in the most appropriate and efficient way to implement mutual assistance arrangements. This also recognises that different jurisdictions also have different requirements about how mutual assistance arrangements are implemented. For example, Australia does not prescribe the level at which a mutual assistance agreement is implemented, but the United States requires such arrangements to be conducted at a Government to Government level.

I am pleased to also note the committee’s recommendation regarding information-sharing situations where significant international trade concerns may arise. In particular, the committee recommends that in such situations the Commerce Commission will consult with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and with the Minister of Trade. This will enable the consideration of possible prejudicial effects on New Zealand’s international trade interests. Importantly, it will ensure that the commission will provide assistance that aligns with our international trade interests.

The committee has also recommended amending the bill so that it covers compulsorily acquired information that has been acquired both before and after this bill’s passage. This ensures that information able to be provided cannot be excluded by the presumption against retrospectivity. In the interests of keeping the legislative framework consistent, I note that the committee has recommended amending the bill to ensure that protections in relation to the use of statements is targeted to those statements that are self-incriminating. This aligns the bill with the provisions of the Commerce Act, as well as with the proposed amendments to the Fair Trading Act. I am of the view that the committee’s recommendations will improve the effectiveness of the bill, both in fostering greater cooperation with overseas regulators and more effective enforcement action as well as in safeguarding the public interest.

In summary, I am confident that this bill will play an important role in promoting and deepening mutual assistance between the Commerce Commission and overseas regulators in enforcing competition and consumer law. Given the harm that anti-competitive and unfair trading practices can have on individuals, businesses, and the economy as a whole, I consider that ensuring the commission is equipped with the modern tools for combating such behaviour in the global economy of today is essential. This is even more important in the context of supporting the Government’s objective of fostering a single economic market with Australia. As such, I would like to conclude by thanking the members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering the bill and by acknowledging the contributions of those who provided submissions on the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) : This is one of those rare occasions in the House when there is unanimity in respect of legislation. This bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, is a common-sense piece of legislation, and I simply reiterate the sentiments of the Minister of Commerce. We have for some time, over many years going right back to the initiation of CER, attempted to get closer to our Australian cousins. A predecessor of mine, Mike Moore, once said that Australians are our best mates whether we like them or not, and there is a bit of truth in that, I suspect. But any measure that brings us closer together economically, deals with monopolistic behaviour and anti-competitive behaviour, and deals with unfair trading practices has got to be mutually beneficial and agreeable to both partners to the deal—that is, obviously, our Australian counterparts, others, and us.

It is often because we are a small country. I believe 97.2 percent—according to a question that I posed to the Hon John Banks, that venerable Minister for Small Business—of businesses in New Zealand are small to medium enterprises, going by the Government, or the Inland Revenue Department, definition of 20 staff or fewer. It is often those entities that struggle, if they are engaged in exporting, to come to terms with intercountry trading practices in respect of monopolistic behaviour, anti-competitive behaviour, and unfair trading practices. Anything that this House can do to bring the jurisdictions closer, to alleviate those sorts of issues, or to deal with them in terms of enforcement and in terms of consumer law and competition law and effectively to implement that has got to be good for both sides of the Tasman, but particularly for our own businesses and commercial enterprises in New Zealand.

The Minister did note, quite rightly, that when this legislation was in the embryonic stage it was a product originally introduced by the then Minister of Commerce from our team, Lianne Dalziel, and it was adopted by the Minister Simon Power and now by Mr Foss. It is beneficial for what we are trying to do in terms of harmonisation, and there has been a great history of harmonisation in commercial banking terms, to some extent in our law, and in other areas. All these harmonisation moves make it easier for business to be transacted internationally.

We expect this bill to facilitate greater reciprocal assistance from equivalent overseas regulators. It is increasingly important for a number of jurisdictions and, as the Minister said, it will allow either Government to Government cooperation arrangements or regulator to regulator arrangements, subject to ministerial approval, which is a provision that has been inserted by the Commerce Committee.

If you look at some of the rationales behind this legislation, the international nature of transactions and territorial limits on regulators make it increasingly desirable for regulators to cooperate to manage competition, as we have said, and consumer effects of transactions on domestic markets. The Commerce Commission, of course, is currently constrained from providing investigative assistance and compulsorily acquired information it holds to overseas regulators. The commission’s statutory powers of compulsion can be used only in relation to enforcement and adjudication within the New Zealand jurisdiction. That, of course, is a major limiting power. There are also legal constraints on the provision to overseas regulators of confidential compulsorily acquired information already held by the commission. This in turn limits the willingness of overseas regulators to provide assistance to the commission, as cross-jurisdictional assistance tends to be based on mutual assistance. Most overseas regulators, of course, consider the likelihood of reciprocity as a factor in determining whether to provide assistance or information to the commission. This is going to create increased flexibility, this is going to create enhanced cooperation between the commission and overseas regulators in a number of jurisdictions, and it seeks to do this while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to address public interest considerations.

I think the select committee gave this incredibly detailed scrutiny. There were a number of concerns raised in respect of telecommunications. It was the submission of the Commerce Commission, and its request that this bill also apply to information gathered under the Telecommunications Act 2001. I note that Telecom and Vodafone were opposed to the inclusion, which is included in the Australian legislation, and this has been incorporated by way of the Supplementary Order Paper. The select committee has recommended a consultative procedure where the commission is concerned that requests for assistance might have significant international trade implications. The commission may consult the Minister of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and then rely on a statement from the trade Minister as to whether providing the information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trading interests. Before providing such information the commission would have to be satisfied that the information would not significantly prejudice those trading interests in respect of New Zealand.

There will be a need, I think, for the Government to provide some support to commercial entities, as it should do when new legislation is brought in, particularly legislation of this kind—education support, as it were. The big end of town, of course, will always come to grips with legislative change far easier than small to medium sized enterprises, for instance, that may be engaged in export and products and services. The big end of town tends to have far more resources, far more expertise, and a far bigger budget to call on resources, to change systems, and to come to grips with legislative change. The smaller end of town, small to medium sized enterprises, do need support, I think, to deal with this. I do not think this bill makes reference to that. As we go through this process in the House, we will be seeking some advice from the Government as to what sort of ancillary supports would be put round to ensure that small to medium sized enterprises are supported and can come to grips with this legislation, and with how to deal with it in their day-to-day practices.

As I said at the start, this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation, but a necessary and important piece of legislation. It does have the support of the Labour Party. I believe the select committee worked very diligently and collegially to produce a high-quality piece of legislation. I am sure this will not turn the lights off and on too often in media circles and other places, but it is one of those mechanical pieces of legislation that is necessary to grease the wheels and to mow down some roadblocks for—being selfish for a moment—New Zealand enterprises as they try to battle it out internationally, and battle it out in jurisdictions where commercial entities from time to time do engage in anti-competitive behaviour and unfair trade practices. There are environments where there is monopoly behaviour. There is a need to have rules, there is a need to have a rule-based system, and there is a need to have mechanisms whereby regulators can cooperate to deal with those commercial evils, if you will, so that we can facilitate enterprise, innovation, and entrepreneurship in our country, across our borders, and in the jurisdictions overseas. So it is with some degree of pleasure that we simply add our words to the Minister’s. It has been a cooperative process. We look forward to this being expedited relatively swiftly, and we support the bill as it stands.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : Acknowledging the work of the previous Government in commencing this work is important, also the work of the Hon Simon Power, and now the work of the Hon Craig Foss. It is great that we can cooperate across the House, as we can cooperate across the Tasman, and we all want to work for the success of New Zealanders and Australasians in a world that is incredibly competitive, and increasingly so. As I noted in my first reading speech on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, here in New Zealand we are a small trading nation. We export 85 percent of what we produce, so it is imperative that we have very good relationships, understandings, and regulations agreed to by our trading partners in order for us to have a level playing field. That is what I think most people, if not all people, in commerce look for—a level playing field. They want to have certainty. They want to know that if they can apply their resources, their hard work, and their capital, they have every chance of success. We know through the free-trade agreements that we are seeing developed that this is the sort of playing field that we want to create for New Zealand enterprise. One thing we are certain of is that we are an innovative nation. We are a nation of people who are hard-working, with great ideas, and with endeavours that can bring great success to this country.

This bill, which was introduced in September 2008, was adopted by this Government and carried forward because it is very much part of our agenda of focusing on improving access for our exporters to world markets. The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill amends a number of Acts of Parliament: the Commerce Act 1986, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, and the Fair Trading Act 1986, and it seeks to authorise the commission to share information with equivalent overseas agencies about unfair trading practices and, as the previous speaker mentioned, anti-competitive behaviour. This bill is part of the National-led Government’s focus on improving access for our exporters to world markets. Boosting innovation and improving export access is one of the key policy drivers for the ongoing rebalancing of the New Zealand economic performance that we seek to see happen.

It is known by all that only by lifting economic performance can we create the jobs, boost the incomes, improve the living standards, and provide the world-class public services that Kiwi families need. So though the intricacies and the mechanics of this bill may not be understood by many New Zealanders, the benefits of it will be. The benefits will flow through greater success in our companies.

We understand that the single economic market is a development that is important to the economies of both New Zealand and Australia. Under the single economic market concept, both Governments have been intensifying efforts to remove regulatory barriers to trans-Tasman trade. It was back in 2009 that both Prime Ministers—our Prime Minister, John Key, and the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd—agreed on the imperative for continued strong and coordinated international action to restore confidence in global economic growth, there in the midst of the global financial crisis. But that same commitment has been continued with the Rt Hon Julia Gillard. It was just over a year ago that a new investment protocol and a CER trade agreement was signed between both Prime Ministers. I will just quote what Bill English, our Minister of Finance, said regarding that. He said: “New Zealand and Australia have one of the most open bilateral economic and trade relationships of any two countries. This relationship is underpinned by CER, which is the oldest and most comprehensive set of trade access arrangements that either country enjoys.” He said: “Australia is both the single largest source of direct foreign investment in New Zealand and is the largest overseas destination for New Zealand investment.”

So in many regards we are joined with common necessity, but also common aspiration, that this corner of the world continues to succeed and be prosperous. It is recognised that strengthened trans-Tasman economic integration, including through the single economic market work programme, is vital for both. We are the third-best place in the world to do business, according to the World Bank’s estimations. But for that business success to be optimised, easy access to overseas markets is paramount for our country. With 85 percent of our products manufactured going to export markets, it is imperative that we have this easy access and that we have regulation that is harmonised to the very best of our ability, so that we create a level playing field for our enterprises here in New Zealand. We are committed to this process—very much so.

We need to offer a better policy environment if we are to overcome the economic disadvantages that our country has. Being small in size is one of them; our geographical isolation is another. If we want to attract and retain increasingly mobile talent—which can go anywhere in the world, but we want those people to stay here and we want to retain their skills here—and if we want to retain, encourage, and invite capital, technology, and entrepreneurship, then a better policy environment is what this Government determines and desires to provide to businesses in New Zealand. Regulatory reform is very much improving that, and this bill goes towards that as well, to create that environment where New Zealand companies can have a presence in the Australian market, and where the ease of business for them there is as easy as it is here. That is where we want to head, with a harmonisation of our commerce laws. I believe that this bill, which was progressed by the previous Government under Lianne Dalziel and also under the leadership of the Hon Simon Power and which is now under the leadership of the Hon Craig Foss, is moving us very well and positively in that direction. I commend this bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I rise to speak in the second reading of this bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. I would like to make some comments on the importance of this bill and on what the Commerce Committee sought to achieve, where there were a number of considerations following the submitters that appeared before us, and then I would like to make some comments, taking up from the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, on the importance of harmonisation. I would like to make the point up front that, the way I see it, this Government actually pursues harmonisation with our closest geographical neighbour across the Ditch when it suits it on very light-handed legislation, and not on other issues that are probably of equal importance to New Zealand’s economic situation and its future, particularly in fostering innovation within its own environment and competition.

But first of all I would like just to acknowledge, as I think previous speakers have, that this bill was introduced initially by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is important to acknowledge that. It was adopted by Simon Power and now by the new Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. The select committee that heard it, I think nearly 2 years ago, was actually chaired by Lianne Dalziel—and very well chaired. It is good that we now have a new chair in place who seems to be doing a very good job. The Commerce Committee is a sensible committee. It treats every piece of legislation that comes before it very seriously, and takes into account the views of the submitters.

Although this bill aligns us with Australia, there were some quite serious issues raised during the discussion on it, which I want to just briefly touch on. There were some important submitters that came before it—namely, the Meat Industry Association, Meridian Energy, Vodafone, and Telecom. They pointed out some, as they saw them, significant issues in terms of the risks of having information being provided one way but not necessarily coming across the other way, and the risks for those organisations of feeling vulnerable in that situation and possibly being opened up to adverse circumstances.

The committee took that very seriously, and although you will see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper being put before the House on addressing the anomaly on the importance of including the Telecommunications Act under the ambit of this bill, the select committee also recommended that there should be a consultative procedure where the Commerce Commission had concerns that any request for assistance might have significant international trade implications that might adversely affect organisations within New Zealand. In those cases the commission may consult the Minister of Trade, after consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and then rely on a statement by the Minister of Trade as to whether providing that information or assistance would significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests.

I think that was probably the most significant thing that came out of discussions in the select committee, because although we were committed to the harmonisation principle, we certainly did not want to see companies that trade and are active in New Zealand feeling disadvantaged by such a piece of legislation. The commission has to be satisfied that any information provided to comparable regulators overseas would not significantly prejudice New Zealand’s international trade interests. So that was seen as being pretty important, and I think it is important to acknowledge the good work that the committee did on this.

I would like to turn, though, to consideration of the harmonisation principle, because I have heard a previous speaker across the House talking about the importance of cooperating across the Tasman. I would certainly concur with that, particularly where we can have an advantageous arrangement and relationship with our Australian cousins. But the most important thing to acknowledge is that there is an awful lot of legislation and there is an awful lot in our current regulatory environment where there is clearly not harmonisation, and instead we are seriously out of step.

I would contend we have got our heads buried in the sand on a number of issues. I actually want to mention some of them, because with regard to this particular bill, which is based on a principle of harmonisation, that is pretty important, particularly around taking us into the 21st century and ensuring that we have got a competitive environment that truly fosters innovation with new technologies. There are some serious examples.

First of all, let us look at this Government’s refusal to countenance a converged regulatory environment for the telecommunications and broadcasting environments. We have currently got two Ministers across the House. We have got regulation for the telecommunications sector, but no regulation in the broadcasting sector, and instead we have got an absolute refusal to acknowledge the clamour for change that is coming right from across industry, from concern from the public, and from a number of other places.

When you look particularly at how this is affecting new technology platforms, where their success depends on companies, for instance, in the broadcasting sphere having access to premium content with the take-up of ultra-fast broadband, currently most of the rights to this content in New Zealand are held by a very small number of market participants. Instead, what we see from the current Minister for Communications and Information Technology and from the Minister of Broadcasting, who happens to also be the Minister of Commerce with the carriage of this particular bill that is concerned with the principle of harmonisation, is an absolute refusal to acknowledge that there needs to be any change, whereas across the Ditch, in Australia, we see a converged regulator, we see regulation for content, and we see a serious acknowledgment of the importance to embrace change.

In fact, right at this very moment, in the last couple of days, there has been a new review come out that was driven by the Minister over there, the converged Minister, on convergence, which is a huge step forward. Of course it is not going to be perfect. There is going to be a lot of public debate and discussion around it, but at least they are having that public debate and discussion, whereas here, this Government is actually trying to quash it and pretend it does not exist. The Convergence Review’s final report was released on Monday and its task was to develop a framework where all media communications could be regulated equally, regardless of whether it was distributed by radio, television, or the internet.

If we wanted to take harmonisation seriously, that is where we would be looking. We would be looking at ensuring that a similar review was undertaken here, that we were addressing these issues, that we were taking them seriously, and that we were not burying our heads in the sand. You have got to ask yourself why we are burying our heads in the sand, because essentially we will not go near these issues, and the reason, I put it to you, is that it is because there are too many vested interests involved. There are too many vested interests involved, with too much power, by too few organisations that can disproportionately influence Government policy.

With regard to the harmonisation and principle within this bill that is being debated today, upon which there is agreement across the House, it would be good to see some agreement across the House on some other issues. The lobbying bill—I would just like to mention the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, which is being put forward by the Greens. That is certainly supported by Labour and a number of parties across the House that see that it is actually going to drive some important change and put the spotlight on the organisations that have disproportionate access to Ministers who are making decisions, important decisions, around policy and legislation, and it may actually start to reduce the cronyism and deal-doing that has dogged this Government’s behaviour in the last 3½ years. I put it to you that although politics is certainly about influence and influence is important, it should also be about conscience and ethics, and it is a sad fact that under this Government we are seeing very little of that.

So, just returning to this bill that is before us today, Labour certainly supports it. We support the values behind harmonisation and we would like to see harmonisation occurring on other issues, such as the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I am pleased to stand to take a short call on this Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. My pleasure is only slightly spoiled by the fact that some members, who as recently as last night were bellowing that the Greens always oppose everything, are not here to see our agreeable side. The Greens are naturally agreeable people. We will always support well-thought-out legislation that does some good, does no harm, and achieves its goals. On that basis we are very happy to support this piece of legislation that we are debating today.

The bill before us has a fairly straightforward objective, but an important one: to harmonise and to allow a higher degree of cooperation between regulators in New Zealand and regulators elsewhere equivalent to our Commerce Commission. Particularly in Australia, of course, one of our key trading partners, it ought to be reasonably easily achieved given the similarities in the two countries’ culture and practice. Not to say it will be very simple, but clearly it is an appropriate ambition to enable that regulation of the wider market, the Australia - New Zealand market, initially. We know very well that in the absence of regulation, markets fail. We are still suffering consequences internationally, as well as in New Zealand, of aspects of unregulated and inadequately regulated markets that inevitably lead to enormous economic, social, and environmental costs. To the extent that this bill endeavours to get common approaches to regulation, to enable regulators to communicate and cooperate with each other, that is a good thing and it is likely to enhance the potential for genuinely fair trade within and between countries.

There was one issue that came up in the course of submissions to this bill, which now seem a very long time ago. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it is apparent perhaps that to include the telecoms regulators within this bill would have been a good thing. The Commerce Commission itself made a fairly robust submission encouraging the inclusion of telecoms regulators. It was deemed—I am sure correctly by the select committee—that to expand the scope of the bill to include those regulators was not possible or appropriate. That is a reasonable decision, but I just flag that as work perhaps for another time.

The Commerce Committee has come back with recommendations that the bill be amended to allow regulator to regulator as well as Government to Government arrangements and cooperation arrangements, subject to ministerial approval. That would seem to be a sensible approach. The examples given were the difficulty of having otherwise to establish relationships not only with the Australian Federal Government but the state Governments, as well. It has the added advantage of ensuring that the regulators can speak to one another independently of Government engagement or involvement, when that might be appropriate, and we think it may well be. I think the select committee’s willingness to support and, indeed, recommend the regulator to regulator relationships be inbuilt assumes a level of comfort around the independence of the organisations with which our Commerce Commission could engage, both their independence and indeed their trustworthiness, and their reliability. I believe that is appropriate. But I also think that given that these relationships will to some extent be built on a degree of trust, it is incumbent on our regulators, and indeed on our Government, to lightly monitor the evolution and development of those organisations with which we do develop regulator relationships, as opposed to Government ones, just to ensure that the level of trust that is implied in this recommendation is sustained over time. That is not a suggestion—I am not implying—that there is any immediate harm or likelihood of a reason to lose that trust, but I do think it is incumbent on us and our regulators to maintain some alertness to that possibility.

For the Greens, our only initial concern about this bill in its original draft was the implication that some organisations, some entities, could be exempted from the necessity of paying fees. So we looked into that, and the conversation went through the committee, clearly, and it became apparent that the target for that, the intended recipients of that goodwill—the exemption of the fees—was the small to medium sized enterprise sector. With that reassurance we are entirely happy to support that. I think it is fair to say that we know that the small to medium sized enterprises are a major contributor to our economy. Something like 40 percent of the value-added economic activity in our economy is through the small to medium sized enterprises. They are arguably an inadequately acknowledged and respected sector and part of our economy, and I think it is good that they are being given this consideration in the bill to remove them from the liability of fees that are scaled more appropriately for large corporate entities, which can carry that cost structure and that cost burden.

I think that is as much as I need to say on this bill. It has been fairly well covered by other speakers. We do support it. We think it is good legislation and we are pleased to see it progress through this House. Kia ora koutou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to, firstly, commend Craig Foss, the Minister in charge of this bill, the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, and the Commerce Committee for the good job that they have done with this legislation, which is part of the Government’s broader agenda of providing the right sort of framework for New Zealand to be internationally competitive, to grow, and to create jobs.

One of the most complex areas of law is around this issue of anti-trust legislation that goes back more than 100 years. And it is particularly critical for very small countries like New Zealand where a large amount of commerce occurs within an international context, and particularly, for New Zealand, with Australia. So where you get a very consistent picture from members of the Government is that we see ourselves as an international trading nation that is open to New Zealand picking up the opportunities from globalisation but also wanting to have very clear rules about making sure that that occurs fairly and in a competitive way, and this bill is part of that agenda.

Where I do find it a bit contradictory is that there are members of this House who are sort of confused about when they support internationalisation and when they do not. What you get from this Government is a consistent approach of supporting the growth of businesses and supporting clear international rules. In my view, this bill, in allowing greater cooperation between New Zealand’s Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is actually about providing the right sort of framework for all business to be able to grow competitively, create jobs, and ensure that this economy is able to match up internationally. So it is very good, in my view, that the House broadly supports this legislation, and we should get on and progress it through the House.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) : I rise to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It is good to see at the end of a parliamentary week and a parliamentary sitting day unanimity across the House on a matter such as this, particularly affecting our commerce, our competitiveness, and our openness in terms of our trading economy with our sister country across the Ditch in Australia.

We have always said, as New Zealand First, that we will support good policy but we will oppose bad policy. In this case, this is good policy. It was policy that was introduced by the former Labour Government; it was introduced in 2008. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the best part of 4 years to get to this point and one would wonder why a good policy like this does take 4 years to get through the processes, particularly when Australia had already introduced such legislation and was basically waiting for us to catch up. As is the case, once again Australia shows us up and it would be good if New Zealand could perhaps pick up its act and work a bit closer with our Australian partners in areas such as this in a swifter nature.

The primary objective of this Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill is to facilitate that cooperation between the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and its overseas counterparts, but most notably the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill proposes improving cooperation by enabling the commission to exercise its statutory information-gathering powers to assist an overseas competition authority, and also to provide any information acquired under its powers to an overseas competition authority.

These new powers will also be included in each of the Commerce Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and reciprocity is the main justification for this bill: any assistance provided by our New Zealand Commerce Commission to an overseas regulator should be reciprocated. This is achieved by requiring formal cooperation arrangements to be in place before the commission can offer any investigative assistance or information. That is a good thing. It means that it has to work both ways. It has to work in the interests of New Zealand but also of the partner country.

There are safeguards, and it is good to see that New Zealand firms have already complained about the sluggishness of the Commerce Commission in reaching decisions on mergers and other such investigations, and so this is a good thing for our New Zealand companies. For them, a diversion of the commission’s limited resources away from its core function would be unwelcome. The bill provides some safeguards in this regard. The bill also provides for the commission to seek payment from an overseas regulator for any costs it incurs in assisting, so in that sense it is a user-pays bill, and those overseas authorities that may require assistance from our Commerce Commission can be charged for its services.

The proposed powers—the bill seeks to better equip regulators both here and overseas to detect and deter anti-competitive behaviour—again, can be only good for consumers, and can be only good for the people of New Zealand to ensure that there is no anti-competitive behaviour taking place within New Zealand. The bill overcomes international difficulties by providing an alternative and, some would say, back-door route for obtaining international legislative documents. Again, that can only help in terms of our commercial competitiveness.

Where information is to be provided to an overseas regulator, the commission must advise any person to whom it relates about that, unless disclosure compromises the overseas regulators or the commission’s investigation. So this is not smoke-and-mirrors sort of stuff; this is above board. It does mean that the commission will be required to disclose to any corporates or companies that there is an investigation under way. The only time this will not happen is if it will compromise or prejudice that investigation. That would perhaps refer to any unlawful activities that may be taking place, and in that regard that is a route for the commission to work in a more confidential manner.

There are existing agreements already in place with the likes of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. However, these provide for cooperation on certain matters, but do not provide for that reciprocal arrangement. This bill does provide for that with those existing countries where we do have an understanding. The bill is an acknowledgment, however, that without compulsorily acquiring information that is able to be shared, mutual cooperation is somewhat limited. These existing arrangements are likely to be amended to incorporate the new proposed powers.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We are pleased that all parties are supporting it. We are concerned that it has taken this long. We do support the fact that the trans-Tasman relationship, the CER relationship, is a very, very important one. This will help to facilitate business between Australia and New Zealand. It will help the two commissions on both sides of the Tasman to do their jobs more effectively. It will ensure that there is a more competitive, level playing field and it will limit any anti-competitive activities that might be happening in any jurisdiction where we have agreements signed under this bill. So it will support New Zealand. At the same time, it can only support commerce. It can only help our companies be more competitive on the global stage, and therefore New Zealand First certainly supports this and we commend this bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : I take this opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. This bill, like the others presented by this National-led Government, reaffirms our commitment to increase the New Zealand economy’s performance, which will lead to job creation and to higher incomes, and thereby to better living standards. It is part of our four priorities outlined by our leader, the Rt Hon John Key, for this term. This bill leads to an increase in our economic performance, because its main aim is to facilitate and increase cooperation between the New Zealand Commerce Commission and its counterparts in other parts of the world, particularly the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other relevant regulators in Australia. I sincerely feel that the bill will serve as a big help for our exporters. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. In doing so, can I acknowledge the Commerce Committee and its chair, Jonathan Young, who is with us in the House, and acknowledge the work that he is doing as chairman of that committee through a very busy programme. I acknowledge that contribution.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. I would, however, like to observe that there was a very important debate on the previous bill in relation to migration, and I noted that he did not take a call. I could not possibly comment on whether he was in the House or not, but it was only half an hour ago. It was unusual that we did not hear from him on that, as the Government is taking Draconian measures to abrogate proper process in respect of asylum seekers. I am disappointed for him and his community that as he was sent to Wellington to convey a message, he seems to have forgotten what the message was.

I go back to the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. Labour is supporting the bill. It was a bill originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was adopted by the Hon Simon Power and is now in the hands of the Hon Craig Foss. It was reported back from the select committee in November 2010. It has, unfortunately, been languishing on the Order Paper.

So what does the bill do? Well, this is, firstly, part of the work programme on a memorandum of understanding between Australia and New Zealand on business law coordination. It is a part of the single economic market programme, which is designed to harmonise business law between New Zealand and Australia. It is important, before we dive down into the substantive provisions of the bill, that we set the context for it. The first point is that of all foreign direct investment into New Zealand, about 80 percent—$4 in every $5—is sourced from Australian investors and parent companies, including 95 percent of our banking system, a fair bit of our agricultural service companies, and the parent ownership of a large part of our manufacturing sector. Implicit in this debate is that New Zealand needs to find the best legal framework to get the best it can out of its relationship with Australia.

Labour has been broadly supportive across the previous Government, and still is, of the broad outline of the SEM—the single economic market process—but with some important provisos. The first point we note is that the Government has changed the objective for New Zealand from doing what is in New Zealand’s national interests, which one would have thought was its day job, to doing what is in the joint interests of Australia and New Zealand. The trouble with that is that when you try to work out or calculate what is in the joint interests of the two countries, New Zealand’s interests tend to get a bit swamped by the big fella over the Ditch. Therefore, the potential is heightened for New Zealand’s interests to be subsumed. So it is with that cautionary note that we acknowledge the role of the single economic market in this bill and encourage the Government always to focus on New Zealand’s national interest and on the quality, not the quantity, of the investment flows. I see that Dr Huo is here, and I would like to just acknowledge that our investment law is, and should be, non-country specific and should not differentiate between source countries. We ought to have a set of rules that are applied without prejudice and that serve our national interests.

Let me turn to some of the substantive provisions. This bill is designed to allow regulators on both sides of the Tasman, and more broadly, to ensure that they can swap information and swap best practice. They need to do that, because multinational business—often the poachers, in the language of the regulators—do not respect borders because they are multinational. So the gamekeepers need to be able to catch up with them across the borders, too. That means they need a memorandum of understanding for cooperation and for protecting information that has legal consequences when they are involved in joint operations.

There are some important examples—which we support—that have been given by the Government around cross-border cooperation in the telecommunications aspect and, in particular, on mobile termination rates between the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian competition authorities. In doing so can I say that we think that is a very good thing. The powers that our Commerce Commission is using are powers that were conferred by the previous Government following a stocktake review in 2006. They have led to a more robust and rigorous regulatory framework for the sector that has, interestingly enough, led to a rough doubling of investment, a drop in the price of broadband, and a massive lift in the uptake. Likewise, there has been a drop in the price of mobile phones and a lift in uptake, and this is another part of that.

Can I acknowledge in doing so the work of the regulator, the ACCC—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—which is of a high quality, and also acknowledge the work of Dr Ross Patterson, the Telecommunications Commissioner in New Zealand. He has held that job for some time. He was the commissioner in the mid-2000s, when I was the Minister, and he has always done an extremely professional job. I wish to acknowledge that he has been a senior practitioner on both sides of the Tasman. He knows the markets on both sides and the practices of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, so, no doubt, under his leadership the Commerce Commission will make extremely good use of the provisions in this bill.

All has not always been good in the area of telecommunications regulation. It was a sad day when the current Government decided to sell the law down with a 10-year regulatory holiday in order to facilitate the structural separation of Telecom. No problem with structural separation—that is a good thing—but selling the law with a 10-year holiday is not, and I am pleased to say that pressure brought to bear by the industry and the Labour Opposition forced it to think better of that idea. We have a slightly watered-down law, but it is not as bad as it could have been. But it does show that that Minister, Mr Joyce, has a habit of cutting deals—like his boss, Mr Key—that threaten our legal framework.

The same Minister, Mr Joyce, was responsible for a deferral of the spectrum licence fees totalling about $45 million to the company that he used to personally own, and I wonder what provisions were in place under the Cabinet Manual to avoid any possible perception of conflict of interest. I assume that he has used some—[Interruption] No, I assume that he has used some, but it is not a good look, none the less. Not a good look. The same Minister has been involved in yet another deal with Skycity, to build a casino convention centre with another 500-odd pokie machines and a very important but little-known provision that is called ticket-to-ticket betting. I want to put that name up in lights: ticket-to-ticket betting.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member that we are on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, and the member is departing from that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Only very, very briefly, under your guidance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, not at all—not any more.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Not any more, because I was about to mention that, in line with the terms of this legislation, the South Australian Government and its regulator, when confronted with exactly the same proposal from the same company, said: “They must be dreaming.”—they must be dreaming. No new pokies for them in Adelaide, and no ticket-to-ticket betting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —which is illegal under the Australian authorities, but which Skycity, I understand, is seeking to make legal in New Zealand, and apparently that is worth more to it than the additional pokie machines. So I just want to have that on the record as we look at trans-Tasman regulation.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, however, has historically been more robust than our Commerce Commission. It did not fall into the hole that was known as “Ruthanasia”, or neo-liberalism, here in New Zealand. It never went as light-handed. It never had a wasted decade. It managed to have reform that was more balanced than what occurred here under the National Government previous to this one and, therefore, there has been less need to wind back that ill-fated experiment than there has been in New Zealand. So we are pleased that New Zealand, having fought its way back to the international mainstream, is now able to cooperate with our Australian cousins where it is in our interests to do so.

Andrew Little: A tenuous grip.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is a tenuous grip under the current Government, as my colleague Mr Little has said. You have always got to wonder with the current Government whether it is really New Zealand’s interest as a whole that it is seeking to serve, or whether it is some corporate in the big end of town that might have had dinner with the Prime Minister in the last month or so.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) : I am very pleased to take a call on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. I have enjoyed listening to the debate in the House today. I am pleased to see that my colleague David Cunliffe is supporting this bill. I do not think there is anything more I can really add at this time, so I am very pleased to stand in support of it.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) : I rise to take a call—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Is this a split call?

RAYMOND HUO: Yes, it is. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member should indicate. Is this a split call with the Greens? [Interruption] No, it is not. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO: It is on my own.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

RAYMOND HUO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill. I have in front of me the Hansard copy of my speech on the first reading of this bill, which was delivered on 25 May 2010. I gave my detailed explanation of why this is a very important bill and why Labour supported this bill. I congratulated the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who initially introduced this bill, and the Hon Simon Power, who subsequently adopted this bill. I wish Mr Power good luck in his new interests and new commitments. I congratulate the Hon Craig Foss, who is the Minister now responsible for this bill.

The bill has been held up. The Government was quoted in the media as saying that it had been held up because of the Government’s workload. That may be the case, but if we look at the way the House progressed a number of bills that have been passed into law, we are satisfied that certainly this Government has its priorities wrong. For instance, last night it passed into law the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill, despite the fact that it creates inconsistency and challenges legal precedent. Labour is opposed to that bill simply because we cannot support inconsistencies in law. The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was delayed initially and then rushed through because unless it was passed into law, a number of good initiatives, including New Zealand’s long DIY tradition, would not be able to continue in its current form. Overall, that bill was passed into law initially in a “wait, wait” fashion and subsequently in a “hurry, hurry” fashion. That is not a good way to demonstrate competency in the way this House should be run.

Coming back to this bill, the main purpose of the bill is to facilitate increased cooperation between our Commerce Commission and other overseas competition and consumer regulators, particularly the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill aligns us with Australia, which passed similar legislation in 2007. I note that the Commerce Commission in its submission requested that this bill also apply in respect of information gathered under the Telecommunications Act 2001. Telecom and Vodafone opposed the inclusion, which is included in the Australian legislation. I am sure we will look at that closely during the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.