Immigration Amendment Bill

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and that the committee have authority to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c); and that the committee report back to the House on or before 25 August 2003.

This bill will allow the Government to deliver on its commitment made at the last election to shift New Zealand from being a passive recipient of skilled migrants to a country that assesses what our needs are, and goes out to the world to actively recruit those who meet those needs. This bill does that by setting up a much more flexible legislative framework around which skilled immigration policy is established. This means moving away from the Immigration Act’s current entitlement model where applicants who meet set criteria must be approved residence, towards a model where New Zealand’s needs are paramount. This is what the skilled stream was always designed to do. However, it has failed at the implementation stage to achieve that goal.

Prior to the 1991 points-based general category being introduced, the focus was on occupational priorities, so this stream of migrants was intended to ensure that migrants matched New Zealand’s skill shortages. Unfortunately, the shift to the points system moved the emphasis from New Zealand’s actual priorities in terms of skill shortages to the assumed employability and potential contribution of the migrant. This was the policy that gave us the doctors driving taxis scenario—something the Government of the day took 4 years to address. Other policy changes in the 1990s, and the unwillingness of the Government of the day to focus on settlement outcomes, meant skilled migrants came to New Zealand without a glimmer of hope of ever finding opportunities to match their skills, their talent, and their experience.

Some of those very people who came in under other Governments are struggling today. In fact, the Sunday Star-Times on 22 June, just 2 weeks ago, ran a story about Jeffrey Zhang and Helen He, Chinese immigrants to New Zealand, 48 and 45 years of age. I quote Mr Zhang: “When we came here, it was a new beginning. We had to struggle for life. We didn’t have high ambition for a luxurious life.” The article goes on to state: “Just as well. He has more tertiary qualifications than you’ll likely find in an average Kiwi street but can find work only as a kitchen or factory hand. … Zhang has six tertiary qualifications, if you count three years’ PhD study in Sweden. He’s switched from social sciences to business studies to make him more employable—an MBA from Canberra and, since immigrating here 3 years ago, management and accounting qualifications from Massey University and Auckland University of Technology. Zhang has done the rounds of universities (he was an associate professor at a Shanghai university and is the author of six academic books) and banks. All without luck. The longest jobs he’s had were for a company making kitchens and as a salesman of timeshares. The former went broke after six months and the latter turned out to be shonky. His wife, a university lecturer in China, is studying early childhood education. She wants to work as a kindergarten teacher. She, and their son, work part-time in restaurants.”

That is what the skilled immigration policy of the 1990s did to migrants, and that is what it offered New Zealand. This policy is about addressing that for the sake of the migrants and for the sake of New Zealand. The Immigration Amendment Bill is about turning the policy around so that we get the best of both worlds. We retain the points system, but we now have bonus points that emphasise New Zealand’s needs, and we prioritise potential migrants with the greatest potential to meet those needs.

This bill is not about immigration numbers. The Government is committed to an ongoing and stable immigration programme now and into the future, and has recently decided to maintain the annual programme at 45,000 places for 2003-04. This bill is about skilled migrants, who make up 60 percent of the programme—and I know that the National Party wants to increase that to 70 percent of the programme, which may be something that we can look at in the future—because of the changes this Government brought in. There was no such emphasis under the National Government. It is important that those who come under this category are selected by us on their ability to settle well and to make a contribution to New Zealand. The bill allows New Zealand to manage immigration applications effectively, by providing that residence applications from skilled migrants can be by way of invitation only. Currently, all applications must be accepted, and when the pass mark is met, we have to grant residence. We do not have any choice in the matter, even when we have very good reason to believe that there will not be a good settlement outcome. We will now be able to recruit and select migrants whom we need and whom we know will settle well here.

Additionally, the bill establishes the concept of expressions of interest as a preliminary step for skilled people interested in applying for residence. Only those who meet a minimum threshold will be able to register an expression of interest, which is much preferable to the changing pass mark that manages numbers at the moment. It has gone from the early 20s to the early 30s over a decade. What sort of stability is that? We have a set pass mark that people will have to surpass. That is the threshold for registering the expression of interest, and I am glad that New Zealand First is supportive of that. Those expressing interest will be ranked and those with the best ability, in terms of employability and capacity building—we will be looking at the effects on the regions, as well—will be invited to apply. There will be bonus points in the system for people who have job offers outside Auckland and for people who are meeting New Zealand’s skill shortage needs.

Under the provisions of the bill, the Residence Appeal Authority is renamed the Residence Review Board, and new review procedures are established for some people whose applications are declined. Specifically, it restricts reviews to the Residence Review Board to applications that are lodged in New Zealand, unless offshore applicants have a New Zealand employer or family sponsor who agrees to support the review. It is inconsistent with an immigration policy that focuses on New Zealand’s needs to allow individuals with no connection to New Zealand an opportunity to access a subsidised review system. It clarifies that only those skilled applicants invited to apply for residence can seek a review of a declined decision, and it prevents those applicants who have submitted false or misleading information, or who have withheld relevant information, from seeking a review.

This is the most significant change to skilled immigration policy in more than a decade, and it will be welcomed by all sectors of the community. I know that it will be welcomed by the business community as it meets the objectives that community has established for innovation and growth. I know that it will be welcomed by the union movement, as unions have been concerned about skilled migrants who are forced into unskilled and semi-skilled work, undercutting wages and conditions of employment. It will be welcomed by well-settled ethnic communities who have seen newer members faced with insurmountable barriers. I know that it will be welcomed by the good immigration consultants, who provide, or have links with, post-arrival settlement programmes, because they are already working on an outcomes basis with a recruitment focus. The only people who will complain will be the other immigration consultants, who think their job is done when the residence permit is stamped in the passport. Those people have nothing to offer New Zealand, and what we are trying to achieve through this change in policy is ensuring that we have a win-win for skilled migrants and for New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

There are two different categories of legislation that this Government introduces into Parliament. There is the stuff that the Government thinks it has thought through and that it thinks will be popular, and one can tell what that looks like because the Government leaks most of the details to the Sunday papers. The Prime Minister basks in the glory of it at her post-Cabinet press conference on a Monday afternoon, then the bill is paraded before Parliament with great fanfare on Tuesday and Wednesday. But the Immigration Amendment Bill is not one of those bills.

The second category of bill is one that the Minister knows is a damage control operation. The Minister knows that he or she has not done the homework, that it will not be popular, and that he or she does not know the answer to many of the important questions. There is no mention of those sorts of bills in the Sunday papers. There is no mention of them at the Prime Minister’s press conference on Monday, and on Tuesday we find that the matter will be dealt with under an urgency motion because the Government knows that it wants to minimise the period of exposure of what will be an unpopular measure.

The bill that is before us today and the bill that will be introduced tonight are very much part of that second category of legislation. They are introduced by a Minister who is not on top of the game, who cannot answer the crucial questions, and who does not want to be exposed to a grilling in the normal parliamentary environment. This is a bill that the Prime Minister did not want to talk about at her post-Cabinet press conference yesterday, and that speaks volumes. This measure is a measure that the Prime Minister did not want to own at yesterday’s press conference.

This is a very important measure, and I am going to agree with the Minister in some important respects. It is a very important series of changes to immigration policy. I say at the outset that those changes deserve to be thoroughly inspected, the select committee should be given the appropriate opportunity to do its job, and members should be able to reflect on the importance of changes in relation to a subject that is profoundly important to our future. But let us also remember that in relation to the measures that the House is being invited to deal with tonight under an urgency motion, this is the result of a series of ministerial blunders. This measure, and its companion measure, is the culmination of a series of ministerial stuff-ups. Having failed to address the policy issues that the Minister was told she had to address, and having left it far too late to address the setting of criteria prospectively, the Minister had to make some decisions retrospectively. She made a hash of it, so she got taken to the courts by some of those citizens who were affected by the measure, and the courts found against her.

Mr Justice Randerson of the High Court of New Zealand decided, in a judgment, that some of the decisions that the Minister made were wrong in law, and that she could not make them. So the Government went away into its corner and thought about its position, and we saw the Minister responsible produce a press release on 17 June 2003 with great fanfare: “Government to appeal immigration case”. Only a couple of weeks ago we were told that the Minister thought she had grounds for appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Randerson in the High Court.

The Minister has such confidence in the position she has adopted in relation to that appeal that she is blowing the appeal process out of the water by asking the Parliament to do tonight and tomorrow what she knows the Court of Appeal will not do. She has read page 31 of Justice Randerson’s decision and she now knows that what she did was wrong in law, and that there is no hope in hell that the Court of Appeal will come to her rescue. What she was really saying behind all the ministerial political flannel in the speech we have just heard was: “Look, I’m desperate. I’ve made a hash of it. I did it too late. I did it retrospectively, and the courts found me out. I know the Court of Appeal, which I said on 17 June I was going to appeal to, is going to blow me out of the water, so, please, Parliament, do what the Court of Appeal will not do, get me out of a fix. Bail me out.” I am saying to that Minister that she will have to come clean if she wants to be helped out of the hash she has made of things by having this Parliament come to her rescue. She will have to come clean and admit that that is what she is asking us to do. Anybody who listened to the Minister’s speech would be excused for failing to understand that that is the import of the measures she brings to the House tonight.

I think there are profoundly important questions that lie behind both of these bills, and, indeed, any measure with a retrospective effect deserves to have the tyres kicked very hard by this legislature on the way the way through. It deserves to have a doubly hard tyre-kicking when the Government is asking for it to be done in urgency, which is the case in relation to the second part of this package that is before the House tonight. I say to the Minister that if she thinks she is going to get away with the loose and easy explanation she has given to the House tonight about where she is headed, then she has got another think coming.

First of all, regarding the process, I say that immigration policy, and the way in which we make it, is profoundly important. How we deal with this measure, and with the second measure, does matter, because it does not just affect people’s lives, and it is not just about the fact that people have applied in good faith under the rules as they were at the time, expecting to be dealt with under those rules, and that they are now being told by the Government that that will not be the case for the vast majority; it is also about the fact that we are sending a signal to everybody else whom we hope is going to consider making some contribution to the future of this country by applying under one of the immigration categories at some stage. It is a signal we send to all those people about how we are going to deal with them.

I strongly believe that immigration policy should be predictable, transparent, certain, and fair. The manner in which this Minister has dealt with the series of issues that has come before us, which now sees her bringing this bill to the House, has not been predictable—it has been anything but predictable: it has been completely incoherent. And it certainly has not been transparent. As I have said, if it had been a popular, well-thought-through measure, then there would not have been a press conference and a briefing for parliamentarians at 4 o’clock this afternoon before dealing with the matter under urgency; there would have been a proper process by which to take the Minister’s case to Parliament to ask for its earnest and fair consideration. The process is wrong. It will be destructive of confidence as far as the public is concerned, and there will be those whose hopes are dashed by the measure before the House today, who deserve us to kick the tyres hard as we see this measure go through.

Behind all this is the introduction of a new skilled migrant category, which, as the Minister has said, will replace the points system. I say to the Minister that notwithstanding her bad faith in not consulting anyone before this measure was introduced under urgency, and notwithstanding the discourtesy of a Minister not even being prepared to make a ministerial statement—as I think Mr Prebble has discussed in the House this afternoon—I will try to give this matter fair and courteous consideration, because I think the issues are fair. But I will take some convincing that we should go back to the policy of the 1980s, because a policy that involves continuous identification of the skill groups that are required relies on having politicians and bureaucrats who are good at picking those categories of need quickly enough. That was not the experience during the 1980s, which was the reason that approach was abandoned. If the Minister is going to tell us that something is going to be different now, then she needs to do a better job of that than she did in her introductory speech. There are many important questions, and this Parliament will ask all of them of this Minister.

United Future supports this bill—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the last election we came in third, and United Future stumbled in at about sixth. What is the member doing, speaking in this debate before I or a member of my party has had the call?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have a list in front of me, which is a list that has been adhered to for as long as I have been an Assistant Speaker in this House. I am now calling the honourable member Paul Adams.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already made a ruling—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know you have made a ruling, and you might have a list, but can you please tell me when it was decided that, under MMP, a party with a bigger membership than another party ends up speaking second to that party? Pray tell me how that is fair.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The reason is that United Future supports the Government.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we are in danger of setting an unfortunate precedent here. I am not going to question your ruling, but I will invite you to give a considered ruling on this matter. Mr Peters properly makes the point that he is the leader of a significant political party. He has significant identification with this matter in the public mind, and he is a parliamentarian of very considerable seniority. If you are making a ruling because United Future has made some commitment—which is not known to members of this House at this time—to vote for this bill, then I think we are getting into territory that requires some further thought. I would have thought it was the position of most members that they wanted to hear the debate before giving a commitment as to which way they were going to vote on this matter. If you have some secret information on which you are basing your ruling, then I think we are all entitled to hear it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): On a proportionality basis, the reality is that the call should go to Labour, but Labour has made an agreement that it goes to its coalition partner United Future.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You see the difficulty you have got into here. You just described United Future as a coalition partner of the Government. That is the first time I have heard that, and we have been going since the election in July 2002. The second point is that any position United Future might take—unlike the Progressives, which Mr Anderton leads—is an artificial position, and it changes depending on the issue. So when United Future is backing the Government it gets priority, and if it is not backing the Government, it does not get priority. I cannot see how that is fair. Frankly, that is what worries me about this. You are saying that, despite what the public said at the last election, a party that has an artificial position will determine the speaking order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Standing Order 84(3). Points of order are supposed to be terse and to the point.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The important point here is that, first and foremost, Speakers generally, over many, many years, have attempted to keep the flow of debate going across the debate, based on an understanding of where the support and the opposition to a particular measure before the House sits. That is what has been done in this case. Secondly, particularly since the advent of MMP, as members are well aware, there has been increasing use of the speaking order generally to assist the flow of debate in the House, and to assist the Speaker in the chair to give fair coverage to all the parties. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, the call has been given, it cannot be withdrawn, and it cannot be disputed by members from the floor of the House. It is clear, and a matter of longstanding ruling, both in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ Rulings, that once the call is given it cannot be withdrawn. The debate should continue.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for explaining the call you gave. It is parliamentary to alternate between those for and against, and that is what we are doing. I have checked with the United Future members, and they will vote for the measure, and I understand that Mr Peters will vote against it. So it is very parliamentary: we have just had a speech made by the National Party against the bill, and now we are to hear a speech in favour of it from United Future. We will then have Mr Peters, who, I am sure, by that time will be ready to give us a rip-roaring speech. We should get on with it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. The point has been made that I have given the call to speak, under Speaker’s ruling 23/3, and I cannot take it away.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled. Is this a fresh point of order?

💬 John Carter: Yes, it is. The precedent of United Future being given the second Government speech has now been running since the election, but it does raise an interesting point, and you might like to give a view on this at some stage. In the way that Mr Prebble has just put it, basically—and it is accepted that in this case United Future supports the bill—the call should be one for then one against. But we have occasions when United Future is opposed and the Greens are in support. Does that mean that sometimes the Greens will get the third speech, so to speak? How is the Speaker to know whether someone will support something or not support it, until the member actually takes the call? We could get ourselves into a difficulty. What has happened in the past is a precedent has been set, because United Future, while not in coalition, has by agreement indicated—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member come to the point? Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order should be terse and to the point.

💬 John Carter: That is true. [Interruption] Yes, I know; I was making that point. But if we are going to go any further, then you run into the dilemma of trying to predict how members will vote. I say it would cause some difficulty.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am following the order of calls on the first readings of bills that was established by the Speaker and the Business Committee at the commencement of this Parliament. There is no reason to depart from it on this occasion. Other parties would find it unfair if the Speaker were to do so.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to record my party’s total disagreement with that ruling, and to say that it is totally contrary to the election results. To have a party in Government that is not part of any coalition taking precedence over a party with more seats is wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debating point.

United Future supports this bill because it is not about reducing the number of immigrants as part of some knee-jerk response to the cultural insecurity of New Zealanders; rather, it is all about the Government being a lot smarter about the people we accept as residents. The aim is to change from a passive receiver of anyone who wants to come to live here into an active recruiter of skills that the country needs.

The bill should not be seen in isolation from the changes that the Government will make in immigration policy. The legislation introduces a two-tier system for general skills residence applications, but is driven by a policy shift towards approving those who are most likely to make a positive contribution to the country and settle well here. Intending migrants will first submit an expression of interest, and will assess their skills and attributes, using a points system. The threshold of the current points system fluctuates depending on the number of applications. As the points go up it becomes more difficult for people with trade skills to qualify, because those with higher qualifications get more points. However, that may not take into account other factors, such as whether the country is in need of people with those qualifications, or whether they have a job offer relevant to their skills—hence the phenomenon of over-qualified taxi-drivers. Under the proposed scheme, the same upper limit of immigrants will be rolled over, but the points will reflect the country’s needs. In other words, applicants will receive bonus points for holding a skill that is in demand here, and for having a job offer that is relevant to that skill—particularly if it is located in a region that is experiencing shortages. Other standards, such as health, character, and English language requirements, will still need to be met.

For those who meet the points threshold, the Immigration Service will issue an invitation to apply. The invitation to apply allows for an opportunity to verify job offers—something that is not investigated as thoroughly as officials would like, at the current time. Successful applicants at this stage follow one of two courses. They may qualify for residence if they have already demonstrated an ability to settle and contribute to New Zealand—for example, if they have worked or studied here. Alternatively, they may qualify for work-to-residence status for 2 years, if they have the potential to settle and contribute to New Zealand—for example, if they have not been here before, but have received a job offer from a New Zealand employer. This means that if the migrant is unable to settle successfully here within that period, then that failure does not have to be met by the welfare system beyond a limited period.

Under the current system, all applicants who meet the basic lodgment requirements must be accepted and processed, and that has contributed to the large backlog that exists now. The inflexibility of those provisions in the Immigration Act are amended by this bill, as those who do not receive within 3 months an invitation to apply will lapse from the system, which means that some of the more intensive stages of the application process are avoided. The lapsed applicants are not able to seek a review of this decision, as the bill also restricts access to a review to those applicants who are declined after they have been invited to apply.

💬 Ron Mark: Did Lianne write this?

No, she did not. The lapsing provision should be seen as a positive move, for, in many ways, it is better to be cruel than to be kind—to let applicants know that they have failed the process, at the earliest possible stage. Under the current system people are putting their lives on hold for up to 2 years, but the change will mean that, in the future, applicants will know either way, within 3 months. Of course, if their circumstances change after their application has lapsed, in a way that would increase their points value—such as an offer of relevant employment—then they are free to reapply.

My hope is that this process will give applicants more accurate expectations about their chances of success, and that, in the course of assessing an applicant’s potential, immigration officials will be able to ensure that applicants have realistic expectations about what to expect when they come here. As much as we think our country is the greatest in the world, we need to dispel the misconceptions spread by some immigration consultants that the streets are paved with gold.

The bill streamlines the review process, because only those people who, having been invited to apply for residence, have their applications declined will have access to a review. Only those applications lodged in New Zealand may be reviewed, unless offshore applicants have a New Zealand employer or family sponsor who supports the review. Those who have had their applications declined because they made a false declaration will not be eligible for a review of their case, but the Immigration Service will be able to correct any errors without recourse to the review board.

The invitation to apply requires legislation, as do the provisions for lapsing residents’ applications. The bill on its own is simply the bones of the reform. This will be fleshed out later by policy—some of which I have discussed here—that will set the criteria for inviting applications and assessing them. But at this stage the bill can be viewed as an additional filter through which residency policy will be applied. The Government intends to work with employer and trade organisations to identify skills gaps and which regions are in need. We are also encouraged by suggestions that the Immigration Service will become more proactive in marketing New Zealand as a place to live and work for skilled migrants, particularly in the virtually untapped North American markets.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh yeah?

Is the member happy about that? United Future is in favour of immigration. We are pleased that the overall level of migrants will be sustained for the next 3 years. Those who want to cut drastically the number of immigrants do not recognise that we need to maintain a sizeable working population to fund State services, in the light of the aging population and the slowing birth rate of the current adult population. This makes it all the more important to attract migrants who will be good for this country. Business and Economic Research Ltd reports that over the last year migrants had a positive net fiscal impact of $1.7 billion. With the right immigration programme in place, this added value could be even higher.

To United Future, it makes so much sense to move from a system dictated by the first-come-first-served approach, to one that puts the candidates who are more likely to integrate into New Zealand society at the head of the queue. Otherwise, the people we want may be stuck at the back of the queue for 2 years and lose their job offers, or they may go somewhere else that can offer quicker entry. At the same time, we would be letting people at the front of the queue get in first, when they might not have a relevant job offer, and might be more likely to be a drain on the taxpayer, through the benefit system, when they cannot find work. To let people come here who then cannot find proper work is unfair to them, as it makes it that much more difficult for them to integrate into New Zealand society.

I ask those listening to look to this legislative framework for some very positive changes that are about to be made in residence policy, and I trust that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will examine the bill with that in mind.

I have heard some naive speeches in this House, but that would be the most naive I have heard in recent times. That member says that, after 3 months, this very efficient Immigration Service will lapse all applications. Do members feel safe about that? Do they feel good about that? There are 20,000 illegal overstayers in this country today. No one knows who they are, where they are, or what they are, but all of a sudden we can rely upon United Future’s Immigration Service to find them when their applications expire after 3 months. [Interruption] “Solar dome” can make all the noise he likes—he is not putting me off. He can make all the noises of a walrus, and the smells as well, but he will not put us off.

The reality is Waikato University’s leading professor of geography, the deputy vice-chancellor, presented a paper just last year in which he said: “In total, 190,000 people, including international students, were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 2002 in New Zealand.”

💬 Dail Jones: How many?

It was 190,000. “However, only 52,800 were in the immigration category, but a further 3,000 were admitted under temporary work policies, and 73,000 were covered by student visas and permits.” But the issue gets more complicated. On page 2 of his document he says: “In the year ended June 2002, for example, almost two-thirds of New Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who applied while they were in New Zealand on temporary work or student visas.” Almost two-thirds were here on work or student visas and permits. “Many of these people will be recorded in our stats as ‘short-term’ arrivals when, in fact, they become residents for 12 months or more as a result of changes in their residence status once they are in New Zealand.” What a sham! What a circus!

Just last week, as stated in the Sunday Star-Times, 72 percent of the New Zealand population said they were against this immigration policy, yet the United Future party, on its way to political oblivion, comes out and backs it. It backs the policy of a Minister who repeats a lie. In today’s document she says we are going to have various categories, making up 45,000 people, excepting that is what she said 2 years ago, and what are coming are not 45,000 but 72,000-plus. If we look at the categories—skilled business, the family-sponsored stream, the international humanitarian stream—we see there used to be a minus next to them; they used to be give or take 10 percent, plus or minus. There is no minus now. Now, in June 2003, there go the minuses, and we are going to have 75,000-plus people coming to this country, mainly to Auckland, where the roads are gridlocked, and everybody around the rest of New Zealand pays extra tax because of it.

What did the United Future man say? He said that this is all good for our economy. It is just amazing how naive people can be. Let me ask him this question: if it is so good for our economy, why are we denying ourselves greater benefits? Why do we not have 275,000 immigrants? Why is Australia not doing that? Why is Australia growing much larger and faster than us? Why is it taking almost the same number of immigrants as us, although it is seven times larger? Why does the United States not do this, or Canada, or the UK, or Ireland? They do not do it, because they are not stupid. They are not sell-out merchants that deal to their civilization, their culture, in the way that these people are doing in allowing foreigners to colonise us from without. That is what is going on here. People who are just absolute—I cannot use the word, but Quisling is the name of that man from the Second World War. I cannot use the word in this House, but it is a form of sell-out unlike any I have known.

The member says this is good for the economy. Mr Maharey was written to by a woman from Birkenhead. She wanted to know how many immigrants are on sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, student allowances, and work schemes. She also wanted to know how many were being serviced by educational services, health services, or accident compensation, or were in State housing. She could not get one answer. This is what Mr Maharey said: “The Ministry of Social Development does not hold the information in a way that allows me to respond to your request.” So why on earth is Business and Economic Research Ltd saying there will be a net benefit? It does not have the facts, either. The Minister will not give them to it. Statistics New Zealand does not keep records, for example, of criminality on the basis of country of origin. So how does Business and Economic Research Ltd know how many criminals are coming here? How does it know about Asian crime? It does not.

💬 Janet Mackey: Ha, ha!

I know that member is embarrassed, but let me tell the lady from Gisborne that in 2 years’ time, when the election is over, she will be gone; so will the United Future party. They will be gone on issues such as this. Although the bill says they have consulted all and sundry, they never consulted the Māori people and they never consulted the New Zealand people. Poll after poll says they are wrong, and they carry on regardless. In fact, I would like to know where those Labour Party Māori members are today. They are always talking about their tino rangatiratanga, their tūrangawaewae, their land, and their country. Every day, those people sell it down the drain. Yes, they want the foreshore and they want the seabed, but there are no cockles at all in Cockle Bay today—not one. It is amazing. Do members know what people call that?

💬 David Benson-Pope: Luigi, the Chinese member!

I say to “Solar Dome” that they call it treason. No amount of bluster on the part of the member from Dunedin is going to keep his job in Government. He will go within 2 years, or whenever the Prime Minister flies the white flag.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Is the member suggesting that members of this House are guilty of treason?

Yes, I do. That is what I said.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: That’s out of order.

No, it is not out of order; it is totally appropriate, and that is why they did not object. I say to Mr Prebble that if the glove fits, they can wear it. Let me come to the point. In August last year, after the election, the Department of Labour—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely out of order to suggest that an honourable member of this House is committing treason. I was not sure whether the right honourable gentleman was saying that, but he told me that, yes, he was. I do not know which MPs he is saying were committing treason, but, whoever they are, that is not in order, and the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not hear that comment, but I take the member’s word. I now ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to stand, withdraw, and apologise for the use of that word.

I withdraw and apologise. Last August the Department of Labour—the Minister’s own officials—presented her with an incoming briefing paper, after the election. By their own admission, every category of the immigration policy is a failure. Members should not believe New Zealand First; they should believe their own officials who were moved to say that every category was a failure. Now, 300,000 New Zealanders in this country, or people who call themselves New Zealanders or pose as New Zealanders, cannot speak English. The United Future party man said that this policy is great for New Zealand. I have asked him some fundamental questions. If the policy is so good, why not make it so much better by bringing in 275,000 people per year? The reality is that policy is nonsense. No other First World country pursues it. No other First World country would even entertain it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Why is the member allowing anyone, if this is such a bad place?

Every wise country has immigration policy designed around bringing in people the country needs, not those who need the country. A country should bring in skilled people, and it should make sure that immigration is not used to cover for it having failed to train, skill, and employ its own people first. It is that simple. A hundred thousand New Zealanders are out of work, yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants. Now we are heading towards, probably, 800,000 to a million within 20 years. We will have transformed this country in a way that no one would have contemplated, all because this Government, and others, could not run a sound policy to keep New Zealanders here, and were not concerned to train and employ their own people first. It is that simple.

I want to make it very clear that we will oppose this bill because it carries on the same immigration policy and failure that that woman Lianne Dalziel is infamous for. If members watch the Holmes show tonight, they will see a “possum in the headlights” show. She will be on the show, and members will see how pathetic she is when trying to defend herself against any reasonable debate. But she has parties like the United Future party in particular that, for what reason I cannot explain, back this policy, even though the people who voted for United Future are opposed as much as any New Zealand First voter is to this sort of immigration mayhem going on in this country. I cannot understand it, but, of course, I can tell those members that when the next election is held, they will be gone.

I seek leave to table the New Zealand Journal of Geography, April 2003, which shows a dramatic drop in immigration in 1997-98 under New Zealand First.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Given that the member who has just resumed his seat was the Deputy Prime Minister in a Government that did bring immigrants into New Zealand and that failed to address the needs of many of those immigrants and to bring in immigrants who had the skills to match the skills shortages identified in this country, I would have thought he would be very pleased to support legislation targeted towards doing just that, so that New Zealand businesses have access to the skills they have identified they require, and so that those people who come to New Zealand have the opportunity to settle and live here and enjoy a decent standard of living.

We have two immigration bills before the House. This one is the first of them, and I understand it is to go through the House under urgency. The way the Government is treating the House in respect of this bill is very unparliamentary. It is treating Parliament with contempt. There is no reason that the Minister could not have raised a ministerial statement. Indeed, she has waited until after question time to hold a meeting. I thought I was being summonsed to a meeting at the Immigration Service, but I found out that it was with the Associate Minister of Immigration. Meanwhile, the Minister went off to talk to the media. That shows that this Government’s priorities are all about spin and media management, rather than about speaking to the House in a correct way.

I shall deal with the first bill. No one has told us why it has to go through under urgency. I think the reason is that the service is saying it might be flooded with applications. Of course, every parliamentarian knows that that is a rubbish argument. All that the bill needed to do was include a clause stating that as from today the bill would take effect. That would mean that people filing an application would be told they were wasting their time, because it was the new rules that would apply. However, this Government does not want the House to examine even that measure. Why should we? The Minister says that 20,000 people are in the queue. Actually, another statement further on gives a number larger than that, and there might be some 40,000 people in the general-skills category. Those people may not be New Zealanders, but they have considered this country seriously enough to have gone to an immigration office to obtain forms and fill them out, pay money, and put their lives on hold, intending to come to New Zealand.

How is this Government treating those people? It is treating them with absolute contempt. Members should make no mistake about that. The bill that is going through the House now will turn thousands of people’s lives upside down. Can the Minister assure us she is doing that in a fair way? She has actually given us an assurance that she is not. If we read this measure properly, we see that those people who have paid their money cannot even appeal. Under the Fair Trading Act,one would be done for doing that. If people in business did what the Minister is about to do, they would be hauled in front of the courts. Indeed, because of the way those people have been treated, they might even go to jail. Have we been told that this legislation is so urgent that it has to be done that way? I have not heard that argument. New Zealand has a points system. Suddenly we are told by the Minister, who has been a Minister for 4 years, that she has discovered that the points system is a complete and utter mess. That is very interesting. It has been going since 1991. She has been a Minister for 4 years before suddenly discovering that fact.

💬 John Carter: What’s changed?

Yes, what has changed? I make this point to the Minister, as well. I looked up the Hansard debates of when the points system was introduced by Bill Birch. But before we blame the National Party, I point out that David Caygill—a Labour member then—got up and said he supported the points system. The Minister and other Government members might have been gracious enough to acknowledge that the National Government devised the points system. I do not say it invented it; it has been in place for many years in Australia and Canada. The points system is still in place in Australia and Canada. Suddenly, we are told that it does not work in New Zealand. Where is the real evidence? Yes, we find immigrants who do not fit in. However, hard cases do not make good law. We are to go back to an occupational system.

I have been in this House long enough to remember that system, and I shall quote what a distinguished member of this House said about that. Let us take one example: the need for skilled labour. “The reality is that New Zealand wants and needs skilled and trades people to fill skills shortages in New Zealand.” Even Winston Peters agrees with that statement. “Those shortages exist, in spite of record unemployment, and, if they could be filled, would create jobs and productivity. The policy in its broadest sense does recognise that.” He is talking about the old skills system that we will go back to. “But in practice, employers’ efforts to recruit such people are hampered by a labyrinth of petty, bureaucratic procedures. They have to face an occupational priority list that is often irrelevant, always out of date, and fundamentally unable to respond to the complexities of the marketplace.” I would like to talk to Aussie Malcolm.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the dinner break I made a number of points to the House. The first was to express my anger that the Government has treated the House so cavalierly. Over the dinner break I was talking with representatives of Business New Zealand and found out that they had been briefed well before MPs were, so had the media. Members of Parliament were briefed last, and then it was at a time when we could not ask any questions. Secondly, I expressed anger that this bill was going through under urgency. There is no validity to that argument. All it needs—and any constitutional lawyer can tell members this—is a clause saying that after 4 o’clock today no applications will be considered under the old rules, and that is not retrospective.

We are pushing through a bill without giving it proper scrutiny. I object to that. I point out that the Minister says that at least 20,000 people are affected by it. I think the figure is really 46,000. These are people who have paid their money and are interested enough in this country to have made an application to come here. Some have put their lives on hold for 2 years, only to have their applications cavalierly dismissed by this House. I am not convinced that they should not have been treated a great deal better, but I make this point to the House: those who do not know their history have to repeat it. The Minister has not given us anything like enough information on the questions. The form she has put out asks about relevant job offers. I ask her what that means. What is a relevant job? That means there must be irrelevant jobs. Who is to decide what a relevant job is?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The policy has the answer to that.

Oh, the policy is to be the answer. Obviously, the Minister has taken lessons from Parekura Horomia. What a nonsense! What is a policy?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s already in the policy.

Well, it sounds very much like an occupational priority list. That is what we used to have—occupational priority lists. It was complete bureaucracy. One would find that a job out in the community was so extremely important that the Immigration Service officials had never heard of it. The Minister said that we want to stop consultants in this area. Well, the consultants just loved that. We also used to have people who went out and found jobs for new immigrants, who would then apply for the jobs and be given them. It used to be a racket, and we are to have that racket brought back by this Minister. She ought to stop and think about why both Labour and National decided against what she is now going to do. Why did Australia decide against it? Why did Canada decide against it? We will find out. But if the Minister thinks that the proposal is so good, why can we not send the bill to a select committee?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: We are sending it to a select committee.

Is it the next immigration bill that is coming in under urgency?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The next one is coming in under urgency.

OK, that is fair enough.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I said that right at the start.

I missed that, because the Minister did not give us notice of when she was going to introduce it. It is part of the arrogance of the show. I went off to a meeting at 4 o’clock, and then found that the Minister was speaking in the House. Again, that is treating the Opposition with contempt. So we are sending this immigration bill to the select committee, but not the next one. Why are we not sending both bills to the select committee? Why can the House not look at the legislation? This is an issue that affects the make-up of this country. Both bills should be going to a select committee. Instead, the Minister is treating us with contempt.

I wish to support the first reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill, and its referral to the select committee.

The Greens are very concerned about the Immigration Amendment Bill, which amends the process in the general skills category. However, we will support it to the select committee so that our concerns can be worked through in the appropriate forum.

The current Immigration Service, in general, has some very serious problems. It has absolutely no reference to, or consideration of, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the concerns of Māori as tangata whenua in this country. Nor does the immigration system take into account in any way the ecological constraints of the natural environment of this country—issues such as the ideal ecological footprint, population protections, or policy. Those issues are crucial to the development of an immigration policy and process that is just to those who want to come to live here, meets the varied needs of the New Zealand population both now and in the future, and does not compromise ecological sustainability.

The current system is entirely demand driven, based on economic drivers and not on the social and cultural needs of the whole New Zealand community. This new bill takes a “by invite only” approach, rather than an approach entirely driven by demand. We can see at first instance how this new approach seems attractive. Greater emphasis on prioritisation of skill shortages is essential to make sure that we do not elevate applicants’ expectations and that we are clear about the sorts of skills that are valuable to the country at any particular point in time.

A focus on regional employment is vital to encourage regional and community development away from the big city centres. It is also crucial that serious considerations are given to the conditions within which an immigrant and his or her family are to settle into community life, what personal resources are needed by them, and what other resources need to be provided to make the transition from one country to another a successful transition.

However, the bill does not interpret these issues into an immigration framework that we consider appropriate. The Greens oppose a process by which some applicants are considered more worthy by a faceless, nameless official, and then shoulder-tapped to apply for residency. Under this bill, once a person meets the threshold he or she is eligible to be invited. It is an invitation issued entirely at the discretion of the Immigration Service, using criteria that are determined solely by it. Those criteria are not open to public scrutiny or assessment.

The bill sets out only the very bare bones of the framework on which the criteria for the process will be hung. The community has absolutely no say on what those criteria are, or on how they are to be applied. There is no transparency or accountability to the New Zealand public, and, of course, Māori remain completely excluded from any input. It is this sort of secrecy in the immigration process that leads to ethnic conflict in our community. The failure to provide the public with any information about the process heightens uncertainty, and even fear. This in turn can lead to prejudice and a breakdown in community relationships.

An immigration policy that is kept from the public and for which there is no public accountability is not conducive to healthy ethnic relations in the country or to the ready settlement of immigrants in the community. Similarly, the lack of accountability opens further the opportunity for corruption and discrimination in the process of deciding who is to be invited to reside here and who is not. This is a very real concern.

There is a history in this country of treating immigrants, particularly those of colour, with racist disdain. We need look only at the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act, under which, contrary to human rights, Western Samoans, many who came here, initially at the behest of various Governments, to work in unskilled menial jobs, were stripped of their citizenship. Of course, many members will remember more clearly than I the dawn raids of the 1970s.

Nothing in this bill provides any protection to those applicants who may have been denied an invitation to apply because of some discriminatory view by the Immigration Service and its officials. I am not necessarily, either, talking about individuals, but of the institutional racism that is both pervasive and hidden throughout a wide variety of institutions in this country. In the past, the Greens have criticised the raising of the English language level test, out of a very real concern that the test selects for native English-language speakers, thereby limiting the range of countries from which immigrants are deemed eligible. There is also the real concern in this bill about immigrants being discriminated against because of their country of origin and their political, social, or religious beliefs. There is no protection against those concerns. The bill goes even further towards restricting the rights of applicants to appeal the decisions of the Immigration Service.

The Greens can appreciate the drive to change the general business skills category and the problems that this legislation is intended to address, but there are serious flaws that undermine the opportunity for a just and transparent process in which the New Zealand public can have confidence. We will support the bill to the select committee in order to raise these and other issues, and then we will see how far we can get.

I rise to speak to the first reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill, which seeks to reflect the Government’s commitment to an ongoing and stable immigration programme. I commend the bill to the House.

The only cold comfort to the Hon Richard Prebble and myself is that there are MPs who are treated even worse than Opposition MPs—and they are Government back-benchers. That fact has been demonstrated by the last two Labour MPs who stood up. They know absolutely nothing about the bill, and therefore had nothing to say. I know why the Labour Government decided to—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Oh!

That member should take a call. The senior whip always chips away, but he never takes a call to say anything worthwhile. If he has anything worthy to say, we will listen to him.

I know why the Labour Government rushed this bill, which is going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee, under urgency. The bill was brought in to take all the attention away from the second piece of legislation, which the Government wants to pass through all stages to legislate away the New Zealand Immigration Association’s victory. The association took the Government to court and won the case, so the Government is going to legislate away the fruits of victory. This bill was introduced to take attention away from that second piece of legislation.

The Minister wanted to tell the public that she had consulted, and that all groups were happy with the bill. Well, I talked to the chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, and members might be interested to know how the Minister’s consultation process actually works. Last night at 7.30 the chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment was rung by the manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service, who asked to meet him at the airport at 3.30 p.m. the next day to discuss some general immigration policy issues. That is the type of consultation that the Labour Government finds satisfactory. I think it falls well short of what people would consider good consultation.

I was surprised. Three years ago, I thought that the Minister of Immigration enjoyed a good relationship with the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment. She promised the association that she would work with it on a partnership basis and have open dialogue. I wonder when the relationship went sour. I wonder whether it had anything to do with the fact that the association actually dared to take the Minister to court and won the case. I think the Labour Government has demonstrated that it will only look after those who never speak or vote against it.

Of course, it is well known now that Opposition MPs were briefed at 4.15 p.m.—at the same time that the Minister of Immigration was fronting up to the media conference, and that the poor Associate Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, was given the hard task of explaining to the Opposition MP what this legislation was all about. I asked him a very simple question. I said: “Minister can you explain to us what you mean when you say that the Government will invite potential migrants to apply. Are you actually going to disclose in total how those migrants who end up in the pool are actually invited to apply?” He looked across to his advisors and said: “I think it is up to the discretion of the Minister and the immigration officials.” That is true. When I looked through the bill, it said that the question of whether to issue, or revoke such an invitation once issued, was at the discretion of the Minister, or subject to any special direction given under the Act.

For once—and it is a rare occasion—I agree with the Green Party. This change will open the door to corruption. Let us make no mistake about it—this bill is opening the door for groups that would have the ear of the Labour Minister of Immigration and immigration officials, because there is no transparency in the process. Who are the lucky ones who are invited to apply? I have looked through this legislation carefully. [Interruption] If that member would stop chipping away and listen, he might actually learn something. He should stop being a doormat and examine his party’s legislation. There is a serious issue at stake. This legislation opens the door to corruption.

When I look at this bill, I see that the wording used is that the legislation will be flexible and effective. Under the current immigration points system, two other words appear: transparent and objective. Under the current points system, the criteria are transparent and objective. Under this so-called migration policy, transparency and objectivity go out the door. I challenge the members of the Green Party to vote like the National Party, and vote against this first bill. They should vote against it because of the process. I think it is an absolute disgrace to introduce a bill without giving members of Parliament, including Labour members themselves, any notice, so that they can come to grips with it. This policy will totally bury those criteria of objectivity and transparency.

I want to ask a question, because the Hon Damien O’Connor failed to answer it during the briefing session. The Hon Richard Prebble raised the issue of relevant jobs. Let us reflect on one example. If there is a need for builders, one could argue that builders who might not have a tertiary education but who are on the priority list, might be invited to apply. Let us consider that a builder from Britain or South Africa would be able to apply just on the priority of a relevant job offer, but a builder from a non-English speaking country, like China, Malaysia, or even India, would have to pass 6.5 points of English language requirement. In 1987 the once-proud Labour Party claimed that it had legislated away immigration policy based on race. Today is a day of shame, because the Labour Government has introduced legislation that states that job requirements are the top priority but, boy, it wants to see job applicants only from English-speaking countries.

For generations, Chinese and other ethnic communities have come here, worked hard, and continued to put up with Labour Ministers and MPs going to functions and saying: “You are the type of migrant we want.” In effect, the Hon Chris Carter would bring along a translator to translate those welcoming speeches into Chinese—then go into the House and put up the English language requirement! National will not support race-based legislation that is lacking in transparency.

After that speech, it is not hard to see why 26 members of the National Party found it necessary to be at a caucus committee meeting somewhere else.

I believe that this piece of legislation is a very good move on behalf of the Government to take a comprehensive look at immigration policy for the first time in about 10 years. The aim is to get some meaningful match-up between people who want to make New Zealand their home, and also make sure that there is a win-win for both the migrant coming into New Zealand and what we are trying to do against the growth and innovation framework. It is a very good move, and I support the bill.

During all the months that I have been in this House—almost a year again, now—New Zealand First has been saying that this Government’s immigration policy is in absolute disarray and that it does not know what it is doing. We have put forward to the Government cases of corruption. We have said that the whole system needs to be reorganised, and that the Minister does not know what she is doing and she ought to resign.

This bill is clear evidence that everything we have been saying is right. All that is left is for the Minister to go. Of course, one cannot get a word in when the Minister is in the House, on television, or anywhere. She tries to run roughshod over everybody’s right of speech. She can go elsewhere and talk over everybody else she likes, but as far as New Zealand First is concerned she will not do it in this House while New Zealand First members are speaking.

The failure that is inherent in the bill before us is the fact that the Government wants to move away from the very basic structure, from a points system, to an occupation-based system. Government members want to rush the bill through the House under urgency, without laying it on the Table for 3 days, which is usual, and without members being able to have a better look at it. That is a totally unconstitutional way of handling this matter, and I join with other members of Parliament who take that view.

Of course it is a great shame, but not a surprise, that United Future joins the Labour Party in this way. [Interruption]

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

It is no problem to me, I cannot hear the member anyway because I am talking so loudly.

As far as United Future is concerned, it is disappointing that all its members did in this debate was read out speeches prepared on their behalf by someone in the spin doctor’s office, and they read them very well. It took exactly 10 minutes, as was planned, but I do not think they fully understood what they were doing. But clearly, as part of the coalition, they are willing to see the New Zealand system falling apart under this dreadful Minister of Immigration.

It does not come as a surprise, of course, to anyone in New Zealand to find the Labour Party introducing this legislation. We know, from so much experience, that the Labour Party spends tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on getting various research polls undertaken. When Labour members see a poll that shows their policy is not right, what do they do? They bring in new legislation. They bring in a bill, change the policy, say that they will legislate in one particular way or another, and if that does not work they change their policy once more. That is what they have done here.

It was very, very clear when McCann-Erickson did the poll for the Human Rights Commission. It showed the Labour Party’s immigration policy in absolute disarray—it was an absolute failure. What did Labour members do? They had a knee-jerk reaction and brought this legislation into the House, not just in an ordinary way but under urgency. It is good that the bill is going to a select committee, and of course, New Zealand First voted to make sure it will go to a select committee. The next bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill (No. 2), will not have that luxury of course, but it is good that this bill is going to a select committee.

One of the greatest problems with this legislation will be the issue of corruption. The Green Party member said that, as did the National Party speaker. Those of us who are familiar with the way in which corruption works—and I am an immigrant from Asia—know that bribing officials to have one’s case moved up the list is the classic example of corruption working. There was an instance many years ago in the land titles office in Auckland where someone tried to beat the system and have the deposit of a land title given priority. The land titles office squashed that, and made sure they were done on a first come first served basis. If one tries to juggle a system by juggling people’s priorities, the obvious complaint made of the Government department will be that X’s case was moved to the top of the list because X knew the Minister, or even worse.

One of the best things about being in New Zealand—and I think every immigrant to New Zealand would appreciate this, especially if he or she comes from a country such as Pakistan, which must be one of the most corrupt countries in the world—is that there is no corruption in New Zealand, and no possibility of corruption.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Use Tuariki John Delamere’s corruption!

If the Minister would repeat that statement about Tuariki John Delamere outside this House, instead of hiding under parliamentary privilege, which she has done up till now, maybe it would be a different story. What she has done is an example of corruption in the sense that, having made that statement, she is hiding in the House. She will not repeat it elsewhere, free from parliamentary privilege. She may well duck her head now. I have no time for what Mr Delamere is doing. But if the Minister is going to make a complaint about him, she should do it free from parliamentary privilege and not hide and skulk in a select committee and try to get a cheap jibe at somebody who is only doing something that may be legal; even if it is, broadly speaking, referred to as a scam.

One of the reasons New Zealand First is opposing this legislation is that it does nothing for the massive increase in immigration to New Zealand. As I said to the Minister—and I had to explain this to her more than once at the Finance and Expenditure Committee the other day—on the question of immigration to New Zealand, the report in the April 2003 edition of the New Zealand Journal of Geography, prepared by very eminent professors from Waikato University, made the clear point that: “In total, 190,000 people, including international students, were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 30th , 2002.”

The Labour Minister of Immigration now bandies about the figure of 52,000 as the immigration figure. But, on the figures of the New Zealand Immigration Service in this report, the number of people we had to bear in 2002, as people living in this country in any one year—and next year up it will go again—was 190,000. Of those, 63,500 were admitted under temporary work policies, 73,800 were admitted on student visas and permits, and the balance was in the immigrant category. There are more people coming into New Zealand outside the immigrant category than there are within the immigrant category. They tend to stay here, and, as the report states, they are hardly here.

The next section of the report states that in the year ended 30th June 2002, for example: “Almost two-thirds of New Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who applied while they were in New Zealand”—part of this, another 140,000—“on temporary work or student visas and permits.”

Of course, on top of all of this we will have people invited here. If one starts inviting people to New Zealand, does one get a little card? How does it happen? “The Honourable Minister, Lianne Dalziel, hereby invites you to come to New Zealand.” How do these people get chosen? Well, those were the Minister’s words, and those were United Future’s words. These people will be invited to New Zealand. How does it work? It is wide open to corruption. The numbers that we are concerned about are still going up. There is no suggestion on the Minister’s part that the numbers will decrease.

We have seen from the recent Business and Economic Research Ltd report, and in particular from the regional dimension—and I speak as an Auckland list member of Parliament who stood in Helensville and who has had 9 years as a constituency MP—that the regional dimension of the impact of immigrants is overwhelmingly dominated by the impact on Auckland, defined as the four territorial local authorities. The overseas border counts for 34 percent of Auckland’s resident population, compared with 20 percent for the whole of New Zealand. Auckland has to bear the brunt of all these immigrants. When I came back to Wellington last year and walked down Lambton Quay, I felt that very little had changed. It was much the same Lambton Quay as it was in 1984. I invite those people who are in Wellington to come to Auckland and walk up and down Queen Street, and they will certainly get a different view of Auckland from what it was in 1984.

The problem is that so many people are being let into the country, and they come here not knowing that they will have to face criticism. They have to bear the responsibility and blame for the excessive problems of motorways. I see that the Labour Government, and its supporter Transit New Zealand, has cut the grant for motorways in Auckland. The region has gone down in the list, from where it was before, and only three of the top 10 projects in Auckland will be worked on. We have seen a roading cut in Auckland, despite the fact that immigrants overwhelmingly dominate the Auckland area. We saw on tonight’s television programme the effects of overcrowding, and delays in the hospital system. In Auckland we see a never-ending delay for State houses, and we get complaints that all the waiting lists are dominated by immigrants. That is very unfair on immigrants. These are people who, effectively, are invited here, as one might say in a broad way. They come to New Zealand, and then find they are blamed by political parties for the vast problems they create, but these problems can be laid at the feet of this Labour Minister of Immigration. We oppose this bill.

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and that the committee have authority to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c), and that the committee report back to the House on or before 25 August 2003.