12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Why has immigration policy been changed so that the child of a person legally in New Zealand on a work permit under the essential skills policy will not be able to freely attend school if his or her parent or parents earn under $33,675?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
It is completely wrong and mischievous to say that the child of a person in New Zealand under the essential skills policy will not be able to attend school if the parent earns less than $33,675. Indeed, the children of all people in New Zealand on a temporary work permit are eligible for free education. The policy changes are about ensuring that after 30 November any new applicants under the essential skills policy have an income adequate to support dependent children in New Zealand, given that people on work permits do not qualify for either free health care or income support.
Is the Minister saying that the report in the New Zealand Herald earlier this week that contains immigration officials’ advice supporting the policy is factually wrong, or is he saying that the officials are wrong?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I can say that that report is incorrect. The member might be interested to note that this change to policy was signed off by the last Labour Cabinet, of which he was a member. I quote the Cabinet minute from July 2008, which stated: “This Cabinet agrees that a minimum income threshold be introduced under the essential skills policy to ensure that temporary migrants can properly support their dependent children in New Zealand.” I ask the member, if he thought it was such a good idea then, why he thinks it is a bad idea now. Is he just too tired to really take notice any more?
Mr SPEAKERThe member just lost a supplementary question. It is intolerable to yell abuse across the House when the member’s microphone is on. That is simply intolerable, and I have deducted a supplementary question for that abuse.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a couple of points to make. The first is that you appear to have deducted a supplementary question from me because of noise from other members. The second is that although I am well aware that you cannot be responsible for a Minister’s answer, when a Minister’s answer is as different from our understanding of the truth as that, it itself becomes disorderly. That is what happened.
The reason why I deducted a supplementary question from the member was that I was on my feet and had called for order, the member’s microphone was on, and he continued to ignore the Speaker totally. That is simply unacceptable. Members in this House will learn that when I get to my feet they will sit down and be silent—members on both sides of the House will learn that—because that is the one power the Speaker has to control this House. When I get to my feet members will sit down, and that is why I have deducted that supplementary question. Members will learn not to remain standing. It had nothing to do with other interjections or anything like that. OK, there are issues that people feel quite strongly about, and I have no problem with that, but when I get to my feet and the member’s microphone is open and he just ignores me like that, that is absolutely inexcusable. Having done that, my dilemma is that the Labour Party has already had 20—[ Interruption] One more? OK.
Does he think that it is a good look for the New Zealand Government to actively and explicitly damage a child’s future because his or her parent has lost a job? What about that is not child abuse?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I will tell members what is not a good look: for that member to come in here, to not have checked his facts, and then to totally lose it in front of the House when he is embarrassed in front of all his colleagues.
The Minister may not have agreed with the question—I will not judge the quality of the question—but to simply abuse the questioner, making no attempt to answer the question, is not acceptable. If there are errors of fact in the question the Minister has the right to point those out. I have dealt very severely with the Hon Pete Hodgson, and I will deal severely with the Hon Jonathan Coleman if he does that again in the future. It is not acceptable. I ask him to answer the question in a proper manner.
Hon David Parker