10. PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand’s immigration system is tough and the policy is “we choose them, they don’t choose us”?
Hon SHANE JONESWas this the reason for the introduction of the new global investor and professional investor policies last year, with investment thresholds of $20 million and $10 million, which have not attracted a single application?
The member is correct that those two policies have now been turned into programmes, but they were introduced late last year, and we need to allow time to pass, because the spending of that degree of money—$10 million and $20 million—requires judiciousness.
Madam SPEAKERWhat is the logic that leads the Minister to think that taking a previous $2 million investment threshold that attracted just three successful applications, and raising it to $20 million and $10 million, would somehow attract a lot more applications?
In 2005 there was a policy whereby $2 million would be deposited with the Government, with a return equal to the rate of inflation. As a consequence of the necessary funds having been increased, it is not necessary to constrain the destination of that money into Government-held stock.
Why did the Minister feel there was a need to cap the number of investors at 800 a year, when Labour’s failed investor category policy previously attracted just three successful applications in 2005 and 2006 and when the new global and professional investor policies have not attracted a single application?
There are actually three segments to the policy the member refers to. In the third policy, where it is necessary for $2.5 million to be served up, we have had 15 expressions of interest. In respect of the other policies, it takes time before a person decides to commit to investing $20 million. Time will tell.
How does the Minister think this policy will be described by the chairman of the association of immigration consultants, given that he has described the policy that attracted three successful applications as a total failure?
I have not seen that report, but I look forward to that particular member and his ilk being regulated in the new immigration bill. I record for the House the fact that during the late 1990s there was a scheme where one could use $1 million, it got on to a merry-go-round, people ended up in court, and they were responsible.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Could the Minister advise the House as to whether it is his view or the Government’s view that if we had got into a savings regime many, many years ago—decades ago—we would not be reliant upon these so-called overseas investment categories or classes, and that half the reason why we did not is that the National Party opposed such measures?
It is a matter of fact that we have a deficit in relation to our savings. We wait with bated breath to see what the other side of the House is ever going to say about that constructively.
Why should the public and the immigration industry have any confidence in Labour’s ability to run the investors’ category given that its changes to the previous National Government policy have seen the number of successful applicants drop from over 1,300 in 2001-02, to just three in 2005-06, and to zero in 2007-08 under the new global and professional investor categories?
As I said, this policy has been around since late 2007, and whether or not the member agrees with it, people require time to undertake due diligence and express the usual level of prudence that we would imagine would be shown when one is spending $10 million or $20 million. For the category with a $2.5 million sum of money, expressions of interest are flowing. No one thought it would be instantaneous, given the $20 million threshold.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister got any reports that at one point in our recent history Canada, and Montreal in particular, had more Chinese millionaires than any other country, except that the millionaires all had the same million—a revolving-door policy that the National Party had duplicated here in New Zealand, and which Pansy Wong knows all about?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to knowing anything about revolving-door policies. Unlike New Zealand First, I am actually very naive about those scams.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
It is not often that a member of Parliament gets up and displays his or her ignorance, but the member just said that she had no idea what the party she joined, the National Party, was doing on immigration when it had its million-dollar investor categories. If National members can share that, then it just shows how perversely stupid they have become.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think that Ms Wong had taken offence at what Mr Jones had said.
Hon Paul SwainOn the basis of that, Madam Speaker, I think the Minister should withdraw his withdrawal and apology.
No, I am sorry. If the Rt Hon Winston Peters gave offence, would he please just withdraw and apologise so we can move on. The House has become somewhat sensitive.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I say with respect that this is plain ridiculous. I have given you some facts of history here, and you are asking me to withdraw the fact that I have mentioned. It is well known that that happened—that within 1 day the money would be in a bank account and out of it again within 24 hours.
The point was, as I understand it, that the member thought it was personal reflection upon her being associated with an illegal scheme. That is why in her statement she requested that it be withdrawn and apologised for. The member has done that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we are at some risk of having a problem here, because what the Rt Hon Winston Peters did was indicate that something occurred that was widely known at the time—it was well reported in newspapers—and it was as a result of a policy introduced by the National Government. For the member to say that she was ignorant does not mean, I think, that Mr Peters should have been required to apologise. She said she did not know what was going on. She was probably the only member in the whole House not to know, but I do not think Mr Peters should be required to apologise for the fact that Pansy Wong had not followed the facts in New Zealand.
Simon PowerI think the point here is that the member Pansy Wong took offence at what Mr Peters said. On that basis the Standing Orders require that he should withdraw and apologise. The implication that the Minister makes in respect of knowledge or otherwise is immaterial to the fact that offence was taken.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The practice was not illegal. That is the very criticism I have. It was facilitated by their ignorance of how to run a proper immigration policy. The money could be in one person’s account one day, then it could be in the next applicant’s account the next day. It was not illegal. So what is the member complaining about and why have I been asked to withdraw and apologise?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Adding further to the member’s point, Madam Speaker, I think you in your summary suggested that he suggested that she was somehow involved. I think there is a definite difference between awareness and involvement, especially when something is not illegal because it was designed that way by National. [ Interruption] Well it was designed by National and given effect to in that way, and if that member does not know that, then he is nearly as naive as the member sitting behind him.
The Rt Hon Winston Peters started with a statement along the lines of “in Canada, full of Chinese migrants” and then he made an insinuation that scams were going on, and my name was attached to that whole insinuation. I am deeply offended that another Minister then started to excuse the right honourable Minister by using a very obvious tactic that has been used for a long time in the House to reflect on Asian migrants and Asian New Zealanders in New Zealand.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I now take a lot of offence at what that member is saying. It is quite clear from the record that a former Minister in a National Government, Mr Delamere, was involved in something that, in the end, was found not to be illegal. He had been involved in the design of that scheme. To say that it is somehow a reflection on the people he duped, the people he took money from, and it is a reflection on Asians to say that people in this House should tell the truth about what went on is, I think, very, very offensive. It is far too politically correct to say, as the member Pansy Wong appears to want to say, that Asians were not involved in rorts. They were.
Hon Bill EnglishIt is becoming ridiculous. I do agree with the Hon Bill English. I will look at the Hansard and work out who said what to whom. I just make the observation that at the moment the House appears to be going through a particularly sensitive phase whereby people take offence at implications whether or not they are intended. I ask members to be very clear about what they say when they are asking questions and making replies.
We are moving on. I think we have had enough discussion on this matter. I am reserving whether the member should have withdrawn and apologised. I need to look at the whole record.
The member did. I appreciate that he did that and that he has now raised that larger issue. Thank you.
Hon Annette King
Ron MarkI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but we did not actually get to the Minister’s answer to that question.
If the member wishes to rephrase his question—I think we have all forgotten what it was—in a way that does not give offence, and just ask the question, we can then move on.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect to you, I am not going to be told that I cannot ask a question wherein I put out there the facts known by every member of Parliament—except one, apparently.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Secondly, I will not tolerate everybody getting so sensitive that the moment members’ feelings are hurt, whether or not that is justifiable, they can have you require the other member to withdraw and apologise. It is just wrong. It is not parliamentary. You will ruin the whole House if you carry on in that way, in view of these rulings. So I put it to you now—
Please be seated. I have made that point, but the fact remains that if someone does think there is a personal reflection, then there has to be a withdrawal and apology—that is the rule. Members may or may not agree with that, and they always have the opportunity to change it. I think those who are listening to this will make their own judgments on that, as well. Would the member please just put his question.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we just heard a threat from someone who is not just a member of the House but a senior member of the House. I know that on occasions when I have got a bit heated about things and have made that kind of approach to the Speaker, it has been dealt with pretty severely. In fact, I think on one occasion I might have been thrown out for it. I do not think there should be any exception for Mr Peters. He said to you directly: “If you keep making those sorts of rulings, it will ruin the House.” That is understood by everybody here as a threat of disorder because he disagrees with your rulings. That is unacceptable.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
Madam Speaker, Mr English’s point might have some validity if he had not just finished barking at you—as soon as he came back to the House—to fix this problem. We let that go because you had just made comments about our needing to get past sensitivities so that we can get back to the business, but it is a bit rich for the deputy leader of the National Party to interject on the Speaker and bark an order at her, then, as soon as another member says something he does not like, to take great objection to that. I think we should just get on with question No. 11.
I seek leave to table the answer to a question for written answer that shows that the category for which the Minister was so proud to have 12 expressions of interest—
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection. Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters?
We still have supplementary questions. You may put a point of order after the supplementary questions, which is the normal practice. Are there any further supplementary questions? No. Well, the member can make her point of order, if there are no further supplementary questions.
I seek the leave of the House to table a Cabinet paper that shows that the 2005 investment policy is attracting minimal interest.
Hon Tau HenareRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Oh no, but Tau is anti-work—that is what he is. That guy was never ever going to talk to the National Party or be any part of it. Do members remember that?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
What reports does the Minister have that gave the Government the criteria for the policy it now has in place that learnt from the mistakes made when we had a million-dollar investment category with no checks on whether the million dollars was particular to that applicant, or applied to other applicants as well?
I can point out to the member that during the 1990s a host of investors fell victim to a range of scams. He has referred to one of them.
I seek leave to table a statement from the chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment that describes the previous 2005 investment policy as a total failure.
I seek leave to table the written answer from the Minister that confirms that no residence application has been—