Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

ACT will be opposing this legislation. What we see with this bill is this Labour Government doing it again. Here we are, in urgency, debating a bill that is being rushed through the House. It is ill-conceived legislation and a knee-jerk reaction. This Government, it seems, has developed a tendency to panic. It gets itself into a spot, panics, then throws legislation into the House—usually under urgency, like we are having today. That is not good government. It is a panicked response, and inevitably leads to bad legislation. We have seen numerous examples, just this year. I invite members to think back to that bizarre situation over the tax on alcopops, which so-called young people are drinking. That was a classic example, akin to this bill, of this Government panicking and introducing a measure that, clearly, will not work.

ACT New Zealand supports immigration. We say that immigration is a key part of our nation. In fact, we are all immigrants in this country; it is just a question of what date our forebears arrived here. The strength of our economy has been based on immigration—the skills and the talents that new immigrants have brought here over many years. But there must be steady, consistent immigration policy. Knee-jerk policy is the worst thing possible for immigration. It sends bad signals, it creates distortions, and it creates loopholes. I ask the Minister of Immigration how many loopholes are going to be created by the panicked, knee-jerk reaction in this bill before us today.

We know that this Minister has a hatred of immigration consultants. I think she has even said so publicly. She hates and despises immigration consultants. Unfortunately for her, there are some very honourable immigration consultants. I can think, just off the top of my head, of three former Cabinet Ministers who are practising immigration consultants. This Minister has totally overreacted with this bill. When we look at this bill we can see what this is all about. The Association for Migration and Investment took her to court. It won. She lost. She appealed. Now she wants to change the law. This is retrospective legislation. She has had legal advice, telling her that this is retrospective. It is bad legislation, done in a panic, in a knee-jerk manner. I am very fearful of the new loopholes and the new problems that it may create.

When we consider the points system, we see it has served us very well. In fact, a former Labour Minister claimed credit for the points system, and I quote David Caygill: “I support the points system, and the Minister and other Government members might have been gracious enough to acknowledge that the Labour Government devised the points system. I do not say they invented it.” That was said by David Caygill in responding to Bill Birch, in this House. This Government is overturning the existing categories and criteria, and one of the real concerns that is terrifying those involved in immigration is the incredible discretionary powers that this bill will give to senior officials—senior immigration bureaucrats. The danger is that the bill will create massive inconsistencies throughout the country, in different regions, because of these delegated powers to senior bureaucrats. They are awesome powers.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: They are already delegated.

Yes, but what we have here is extended delegable powers, and the real fear is that that will create regional inconsistencies. That is the point that the Minister does not seem to have grasped. She certainly has not consulted the immigration consultants. We have heard various reports on that today. She says she did not consult because they would have taken financial advantage of the situation, if she had given them any warning. So rather than consult those who actually understand the business, and actually understand what is required, she went off on her own bat, drafted this legislation, and threw it into the House in a knee-jerk, panicked manner. I say we should all be very fearful of the new loopholes—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: All good consultants have come out in favour of this bill.

The ones I was listening to on the wireless this morning certainly have not. Perhaps the Minister tunes into a different station, or perhaps she was not up that early. Certainly, the immigration consultants that I have heard commenting on this bill are not in favour of it.

We should bear in mind that their first chance to comment, or even to examine it, was after it had been introduced to this House, and that is the real shame. There was no consultation. The bill was drafted by the Minister, who was driven by her hatred for the immigration industry, and we should all be very concerned about the new problems that it will, inevitably, create. Whenever this Government has panicked and brought in legislation under urgency, it has always got it wrong. The sad thing is it does not learn. It keeps repeating the same mistake. We know that adults learn by their mistakes, but it seems that this Cabinet does not learn by its mistakes. It keeps repeating the same mistake in this respect.

ACT will be opposing this legislation. We believe that it is bad legislation, and we are fearful of what it will do. It sends the wrong signals. It will not give stability. What about the people who have planned ahead and made the decision to immigrate? What bigger decision can people make than to immigrate to a new country—to bring their skills and their talents here? Now they find that the rules have changed on them, after they have made their applications and after their applications have been received. It is retrospective; that is the worst aspect of this legislation.

I am very pleased to support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), and I do so for a very fundamental reason. For years and years we have had good people, qualified people, coming here, but there has been a mismatch in terms of where they go, because they go where jobs may not be available. They have tended to congregate in the north of New Zealand—in Auckland—and we know about the problems, the infrastructure difficulties, that this Parliament is going to have to address because Auckland has grown faster than the rest of the country. This bill will promote balanced growth around the country. Regions that need skilled people will get skilled people. Those people will not end up in one part of the country, as they do now.

This bill will provide what employers want. Employers have said to me, and I guess they have said it to every other member of the House, that they find it difficult to get this or that sort of specialist person. It has simply driven them mad over the years with frustration. The bill will end that. The regional inconsistencies that Ken Shirley talked about will disappear, because there will be a consistent approach to filling a need—to matching skills with the vacancies that exist. So we will not have our industries congregating in Auckland, and closing down in other areas.

The good immigration consultants are in favour of this bill.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

They are in favour of it. I shall finish by mentioning one story. I was recently in Canada, which was proposing, at the beginning of last October, to change its immigration laws so that its immigration policy would target outlying areas where populations had decreased. Immigrants would have to live there for 10 years. I discussed that with the Minister shortly after, and I think that what we have done is even better. In Canada there is no guarantee that immigrants’ skills will match what employers want. What we are doing with this bill will give us the best of both worlds. I am very happy to support the bill.

That member, who is very happy to support a very good bill, as he says, gave it precious little time in this House to point out its so-called good points. But the reality of it all is that the Minister of Immigration just the other night was asked a question about whether she had brought this Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) to Parliament to offset her dramatic loss in a court case, and she had the effrontery to say no, when every other New Zealander knows that the answer is yes.

But my real point is this: from the kind of speech made by Mr Kelly and members of the United Future party—whatever “United Future” means—it is clear they do not understand at all what is going on. If those men from the United Future party do not believe me, they should have a look at today's Dominion Post, where a so-called independent source comes to the same conclusion. If we look on page 1, we see these words in respect of the changes: “But they could also benefit foreign tertiary students, including many from China. She indicated they would get priority, especially if they had a job offer.” What it all means is pretty significant. If we look at the Waikato University analysis of just the end part of 2002, we see that it says that, in total, 190,000 people, including international students, were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 2002. Then it says that only 52,800 were in the “immigrant” category—their quotes not mine. What that really tells us is that 137,200 are in the category described in this morning’s Dominion Post.

In short, I say to the Minister that she has no idea whatsoever what she is doing. The Minister has no idea whatsoever as to what she is up to. She went on radio this morning and said: “Oh, this bill will not affect anybody in New Zealand.” Again, that is utter poppycock. She has no idea whom it will affect, because she simply has not had the analysis done, and simply because, as Waikato University pointed out in its analysis, thus far something like two-thirds ofNew Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who applied while they were in New Zealand on temporary work or student visas and permits. The Minister is shaking her head and saying no. That trade union lawyer has got the effrontery to argue that a person who is a professor of geography and deputy vice-chancellor is wrong and she is right.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No.

No, no—it is just arrogance of the worst sort. He says that in the year ended 30 June 2002, for example, almost two-thirds of New Zealand’s approvals for residence were granted to people who had applied while they were in New Zealand on temporary work or student visas or permits. I recall being in China in 1997, and this country giving China an undertaking that the students we took from that country under our new visa arrangements would all be sent home.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No.

Oh yes, we did. The Minister was not there so she does not know. I was and I do. The Chinese Government specifically said: “Would you make sure, though, in making these new visa arrangements”—which were new, were being introduced for the first time ever—“that they are all sent back home.” Now we find that two-thirds of those who get approval actually came here under the category of work or student visas or permits.

What is amazing about this Minister’s policy is that we know it takes 3 percent of gross domestic product to provide work for those students who leave schools or tertiary institutions in our country. It takes 3 percent of gross domestic product. We have always known that; we have known that for 40 to 50 years. But we have gross domestic product of 2 percent coming up, and, probably, worse, so we will not be able to provide for our own students who are leaving our universities and schools, yet in will come not the 45,000 on the Minister’s fact sheet, but something like 72,000-plus, which is the current rate of people migrating to this country. What does it mean? It means more gridlock, more demand on services, and more charges that are a loss for the New Zealand people.

There is one other thing I want to say while I am on the question of the bill before us. The Minister, in seeking to get around the case she lost on 16 May of this year, and having said on, I think, 17 June this year that she was going to go to a higher court of appeal, namely the Court of Appeal—she said she had such a good case that she was going to appeal—decided that somehow she might have got it wrong, and that she should bring a bill to Parliament, and get a bunch of wide boys with no experience, namely the United Future party, to back it so that the Government could get it through.

💬 Edwin Perry: Did she win?

No, she lost. But, never mind, that trade union lawyer said: “Don’t worry about it. I know that the High Court got it wrong. I will go off to the Court of Appeal and I will have that decision overturned.” So why did she not have it overturned? How can we believe a Minister who says no, when asked whether that was the reason for the bill? What sort of integrity has such a Minister got? Barefaced! And the other proponent in that case, sitting on the other side of the television set, someone called Milnes, knew it was not true, as I knew it was not true. Of course, we had the “deer in the headlights” performance again, where her idea was: “I’ll just keep talking—no matter if I don’t make any sense—and make sure that they can’t get a word in edgeways.” There it was—open mouth, disengaged brain, let it all go! But unfortunately it did not look good on television. Just to make sure, I asked my colleagues how the Minister looked. They said: “Actually, Winston, it was pathetic and sad.”

It is sad that Labour should think that on this key issue, a determinant for the next election, it can get away with saying it has changed the policy. But the Dominion Post is on to it. The Dominion Post knows that Labour has not changed the policy. If we look at the bill, we see again that all the Government has done is reshuffle the immigration queues, and, worse still, deny tens of thousands of people their rights.

My question to Mr Hereora, who is about to rise to his feet—and I hope he makes a longer speech than Georgina Beyer did; she spoke for 30 seconds—is this: can we have 10 minutes on how this bill is good for the tangata whenua whom he claims to represent? How is the bill good for south Auckland Māori? Perhaps he can tell us how many Māori around the marae of this country support mass immigration of 72,000 foreigners per year? Before he rises, perhaps he can ask Mr Horomia what Ngāti Porou think of all of this. Frankly, we are sick to death of what I call “Sunday afternoon Māori”. On a Sunday afternoon they get out and parade their Māoriness, but when they get down to Parliament on Tuesday, they forget about the people who put them there. [Interruption] They stand for Māori seats; do members realise that the proportion of Māori seats is less now than it ever was in history?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will come back to the bill.

Do members realise—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What nonsense!

Chris Carter says: “What nonsense!” Who does he represent?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: 50,000 people in Te Atatu.

No, he does not. If it were not for the Labour Party, he would not have made it to Parliament.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I have got a bigger majority than you.

No, the member does not.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: It’s true.

The member should not make himself look silly. I say to him: “Do not make me laugh!”. He does not. The reality of it all is that—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

I seek leave for an extension of time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for an extension of time. Is there any objection? There is.

I rise in support of this bill. I congratulate the Minister of Immigration on articulating a practical way of benchmarking a process of selection, and, more important—and I agree with my colleague Graham Kelly—on acknowledging the call from employers, who have continually complained to me about the skills shortage. I commend this bill to the House.

I think the New Zealand Herald’s headline says it all for the two immigration bills that are being rushed through this House: “Govt shuts door on migrants”. The Dominion Post went further and actually identified the changes that negatively affect, in particular, potential migrants from China and India. That, indeed, was the intention of the legislation. The only mystery is why the Labour Minister of Immigration continues to deny that this immigration policy was introduced to restrict the number of migrants. Last night Mr Paul Adams of United Future was at least being honest. He admitted that United Future and Labour actually looked up the New Zealand First immigration policy and modelled this policy on it, in terms of migrants’ intentions and contribution to New Zealand. But we will come back to that slightly later.

I want to take up the point that the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, was very upset with the immigration consultants organisation, the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment. She said it embraced some consultants who were not doing their job properly. I remember that she promised about 4 or 5 years ago, when she was in Opposition, that when she became the Minister of Immigration she would fix those immigration consultants who were ruthless and not doing a good job. I wonder what happened to that promise to sort out those immigration consultants whom she blamed for causing problems.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What’s this got to do with the bill?

Oh, so the Opposition is not even allowed to ask a valid question! It has everything to do with it, because you raised it when you were giving your second reading speech about immigration consultants.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I was not doing anything. Please do not bring me into the debate.

I am sorry about that. I would never dream of implicating you in that way. You have been very tolerant and understanding. I am sure this debate will go very well. The Opposition is seeking a lot more calls.

This piece of legislation has two parts to it. First of all, it will enable the Immigration Service to prioritise applicants on a global base. The Minister of Immigration tried to tell us that that is sensible. The Hon Michael Cullen also said that that sounds eminently sensible, as potential migrants should be prioritised on a global base, and their ranking should not be based on whether they go to the immigration offices that have the most staff and can assess potential migrants. The only trouble is I read a lot more into that. I think any coded statement like “global prioritisation” basically means that New Zealand can favour migrants from European and English-speaking countries. I think it is a shame, because since 1987 the public has continually been told by Labour that the Labour Government’s changes to immigration legislation had removed bias against any country in terms of attracting potential migrants. I think “global prioritisation” is a coded phrase, and means that the Labour Government has reintroduced a system that is less than transparent in giving priority to English-speaking migrants. I would put my money on it.

Of course, the Government has the right to do that. What the Opposition wants is for Labour to come out and admit it, and then at least we can debate the merit of it. For Labour not to admit that that was the intention, and to use phrases like “global prioritisation”, is, indeed, very strange. If the Minister is so confident in saying that if an overseas office of the Immigration Service has more staff than others, it should not process migrants, is she trying to tell us that New Zealand will also centralise the whole Immigration Service, and bring its overseas staff back to New Zealand? If, indeed, “global prioritisation” is the way to go, one will see the Immigration Service in this country expand its staffing resources, and some of the overseas offices consequently will have their staffing requirement reduced.

We have a lot more questions to ask, and I hope the Minister will continue to take calls to answer some of the questions that remain a mystery to us on this side of the House.

Part 2 deals with the court case that the Labour Government lost to the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment. This case was to do with the Labour Government failing to obtain expert advice, and deciding, shall I say, to enforce a policy that it now argues is not correct. It wanted to enforce an immigration policy that if applicants who had submitted their applications for immigration before 19 November did not have enough points, they could embark on a period of grace for job seeking. During that period the policy has changed. The immigration consultants tried to persuade the Minister that, for those people who had submitted applications before 19 November, the same rules should apply and they should have a few months’ grace to make up the extra points. The Minister would not listen. The judge said it was very clear that people who had submitted applications before 19 November should have the same rules applied to them if their applications have not been assessed.

The Minister was very confident that the judge was wrong, and told the public that she would appeal. But yesterday, under urgency, we were suddenly faced with a piece of legislation that indicates that the Minister was no longer confident that the appeal case would be won. That is why we are being dragged here—to cover up a mistake. The Minister should have accepted that the judgment against her in the first place was the correct one. We are about to embark on the Committee stage, yet many questions remain unanswered, and the Opposition will certainly continue to raise them.