Immigration Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I commend the select committee to the House for the excellent work it has undertaken in considering the Immigration Amendment Bill. Of particular note is the select committee’s work in addressing all the concerns raised in the submissions. The bill makes a number of changes to the Immigration Act to establish a more flexible legislative framework for the Government’s residence policy to enable the active recruitment of migrants and more effective management of residence applications. The bill gives effect to the Government’s desire to see New Zealand shift from being a passive recipient of skilled migrants to being a country that assesses what its needs are and goes out to the world actively recruiting and inviting skilled migrants to meet those needs.

The bill amends the Immigration Act in three broad areas. Firstly, it enables the Government’s residence policy to provide that certain applications for residence can be made only following invitation to apply for residence. Secondly, it establishes new appeal procedures in respect of residence decisions. The Residence Review Board will replace the Residence Appeal Authority and there will be no rights of appeal or review where a person is not invited to apply for residence. Finally, it provides for the future lapsing of immigration applications, including expressions of interest in residence. That power will be used as part of the management of future flows of applications to ensure that the number of places available under the Government’s annual immigration programme is not exceeded.

The select committee received 31 public submissions, 15 of which involved oral submissions. A number of submissions expressed overall support for the general intent and direction of the proposed amendments, with particular support coming from business and industry groups and an organisation representing immigration consultants. Business New Zealand supports the concept of expressions of interest, followed by invitations to apply for residence. It sees that process as providing greater certainty and a more streamlined approach that will advantage those individuals that New Zealand needs.

The Council of Trade Unions supports the objectives of the bill and notes that it will allow a clearer matching of skill requirements in the economy and migrants. Similarly, the New Zealand Immigration Institute noted that it supports the intent of the bill, as it is designed to ensure that New Zealand selects migrants who will benefit this country. The Industry Training Federation supports the objectives of the bill and recommends that it proceed. It believes that the changes will benefit industries in addressing skill shortages. Venture Southland considers that the bill provides a positive foundation for the recruitment of skilled migrants.

In clause 5 the words “or any aspect of the processing of a visa application” have been deleted. That change is made in response to issues raised by the Human Rights Commission. Clause 8 has been amended to clarify that any decision to lapse an application must be made in accordance with the rules and criteria applicable at the time the application was made. Clause 13 deals with appeals to the board against refusal of residence, visa, or permit. Clauses 13(2), 13(3), and 13(4) have been deleted, having the effect of removing the proposed restriction on appeals to the Residence Review Board for residence applications that are off shore.

The issues around restricting appeal rights on the basis of connection to New Zealand are finally balanced. On the one hand it is questionable whether people who have never been to New Zealand, and who have no or few ties here, should have any appeal rights. On the other hand, the Government acknowledges the concerns raised about the need to provide an independent review of all declined residence decisions in order to prevent the perception of unfettered decision-making by individual visa officers off shore. It is clear that many submitters considered that the current Residence Appeal Authority process places an important check on the Immigration Service’s use of power. To alleviate concerns, and as part of the initial implementation of the new residence framework, the current rights of appeal for persons declined a visa or permit have been retained.

Concerns were raised by various submitters, including the Auckland District Law Society and the Council of Trade Unions, about how discretion will be applied and how transparent the policy will be. Under the new skilled migrant category, there will be clear criteria for expressions of interest, with certain prerequisites that must be met. These include employability and capacity-building, which will be assessed using a points system. Those who rank the highest will be invited to apply for residence.

The use of the word “discretion” to describe the process of issuing an invitation to apply is consistent with the nature of other immigration-making—that is, residents in temporary entry. It is consistent with the general framework of the Immigration Act. The exercise of discretion is qualified by Government residence policy. Rules and criteria concerning the issue of an invitation to apply will be set out in Government residence policy.

Finally, I wish to read an email that the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, received after the policy was announced. It says it all. “I own an IT recruitment agency. My team and I see the issues of migrants on a daily basis. I personally have worked with many immigrants. In my first year in New Zealand I secured positions for 61 IT professionals who were overseas, and then proceeded to help them and their families migrate to New Zealand. I really do understand how important the right immigration policy is to our local economy. I wholeheartedly believe that your changes will have a very positive impact on our employment market. I do believe that many of the people raising their eyebrows in the last week”—when this email was written—“have no concept of how difficult it is for many immigrants, who either don’t have the level of English required to survive a Kiwi workplace, or the skills we need to keep our economy alive. I sincerely hope that the media will hold their breath and watch the results of your policy change. In the interim, my thanks and support go to you.”

That was from a new migrant to New Zealand and sent to the Minister of Immigration. That is why the Immigration Amendment Bill is so important to skilled migrants and to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I want to say that as a result of the Business Committee discussion, and my own assessment, I now have the order of calls that I am going to give in first, second, and third reading debates and other set debates limited to 2 hours. If members want to come up and have a look at that, they can. The bottom sentence is important as all calls are tradable, of course. Parties do not have to take a call if they do not wish to do so.

The Minister, Hon Chris Carter, who just made that speech to the House, would have done credit to the Iraqi Minister for Information, because he just told this Parliament that there were many submissions in favour of this bill that the Government seeks to read for a second time today. If one in 10 is many, then I guess it is the truth. I suspect that only the Iraqi Minister for Information would consider that sort of thing to be the truth, apart from maybe the Labour members of the New Zealand Parliament.

After hearing the 15 submissioners who sought to be heard, the National Party members on the select committee had this to say about this bill—and I will quote it because it is quite important—“The National Party has concerns that this legislation could be applied in such a way as to compromise some fundamental human rights principles. Its lack of transparency in procedure could lead to corruption. While it is recognised that there is a need to better match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy, National members believe that this can be done in a more transparent manner that does not compromise New Zealand’s international reputation.”

National’s minority report was a very measured response to some of the submissions from very important organisations that we heard from at the select committee. When we get groups such as the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties saying that this legislation worries them because it could lead to corruption, and when the Auckland District Law Society says exactly the same thing—that it is concerned that this legislation could lead to corruption—I think members of this House should take some notice.

This bill gives the Minister of Immigration absolute power to choose who can be invited to apply for residence in our country. That is a huge power to give to a Minister. The Minister can extend that power to officials within the Department of Immigration. They are the very same officials who are being investigated for the possibility of lying in unison. They are the same officials in the same department who, it was revealed in this Parliament, talked in a memo of “lying in unison”.

This legislation gives those people, plus the Minister, extraordinary power. We heard at the select committee that no other country in the world is implementing a scheme like that, which gives such unfettered power to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister’s senior officials. Some members may say that the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties does not matter much. Some Labour members may argue that the council’s concern that this legislation could lead to corruption is not a concern. I thought it might have concerned United Future—but, still!

The Auckland District Law Society, though, is a different kettle of fish. The Auckland District Law Society has not only said that this legislation could lead to corruption, but also it told the select committee that this legislation could damage the image of New Zealand. It is its view that this legislation could damage New Zealand’s image because it could show New Zealand and its Government in a light that some could interpret as tending to be racist. It was not just the Auckland District Law Society saying that it would lead to corruption, that it could damage the image of New Zealand. The society said that it was ashamed that this kind of legislation was in front of its Parliament. That is pretty powerful stuff, coming from a law society. That is how deeply it felt that this legislation offended concepts of fairness, of natural justice, of transparency in Government decision-making. The law society felt that it so offended those principles that it was ashamed it was before the Parliament.

Some might say the Auckland District Law Society does not amount to much. Maybe that is the way Labour views the law society. But the Human Rights Commission appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on 5 August of this year. I have detailed notes of what it had to say to us. The Human Rights Commission was concerned about the human rights implications of this legislation. It told us it was concerned about natural justice issues, in respect of this legislation. It was concerned that the lack of transparency in decision making that this legislation provided for, could lead to unfair use of discretion.

Right up to the end, on 14 August—the last day the select committee considered this legislation, which is only a few days ago—committee members were worried about this; and not just Opposition members. There was debate going on, on 14 August, according to my notes. There was concern being discussed at the committee that this legislation could be used in a racist manner. It is quite clear that that is possible.

I have to say that if the previous National-led Government had dared to bring to this Parliament, had been unwise enough to bring to this Parliament, legislation that could be used in a racist manner—where the law society, where the Human Rights Commission, expressed such concern about the issues of fairness and justice—that bunch over there, those Labour members, would have howled us out of this Parliament. Today they seek to read, for the second time, this bill that could be used in such an unfair and discriminatory manner.

The bill gives the Minister the absolute power to choose who can apply for residence—not absolute power to decide who is granted residence, but absolute power to choose who may apply for residence. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that recent legislation lapsed the applications of thousands and thousands of Indian applicants. These thousands were largely applicants from India. They speak English; they had high education. One is led to a conclusion—in asking the question as to why those applications were lapsed by this Government—it smacks of racism.

But it is not only the absolute power to the Minister to choose who can apply but also the fact that no one can appeal, if the Minister chooses not to invite that person to apply. The Minister does not have to give any explanation—nothing!—in making her decision that that person is going to be invited to apply, but some other person is not. Given the recent track record of the Minister and the Ministry of Immigration, this legislation is too dangerous, because it will tarnish New Zealand’s reputation. Inevitably, issues of discrimination will arise. Inevitably, where one has a system so lacking in transparency, there will be challenges of discrimination, of unfairness, and discrimination based on race. Our Parliament, our country, should not be passing legislation that could so tarnish this country’s fine reputation.

As the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that considered the bill, I want first of all to acknowledge the contribution made by all the members from just about every side of the House, who participated in that consideration. They all contributed constructively and positively, and the bill that has emerged, as a result, is a much better bill. It is much better, not just for their contribution but also because in substantial part the submissions made and the concerns raised have been listened to and accommodated in the revised draft that is before the House.

Let me put on the record, too, the fact that the significant majority of submissions received on the bill opposed its original provisions. The committee listened very carefully to a range of those concerns, some of which have been paraded before us in the previous speech, in somewhat colourful language, and they have been addressed.

💬 Dail Jones: No, they haven’t.

The points raised—

💬 Dail Jones: Rubbish!

I say to the member from New Zealand First that I will come to that matter shortly. The points raised by the Human Rights Commission, and many others, have been addressed in the way in which this legislation has been drafted.

I turn to the comments made by the previous speaker in respect of the National Party’s minority report. I make this observation. What he is essentially saying is that it is unacceptable to have a situation where the Government of the day has any immigration policy, whatsoever. The Government of the day has no right, according to his argument, to have any view about the type, number, category, or whatever, of people coming to this country. That immediately puts him at odds, of course, with the New Zealand First Party, whose minority report decries this bill, not for its content but because it does not put in place a numerical limit on the number of migrants coming here.

What both those views demonstrate to me is an actual lack of understanding or appreciation about what this bill sets out to do. I view it purely as a matter of process. The previous speaker alluded to the fact that the legislation that was passed a few weeks ago cancelled the applications of a significant number of people—20,000, I think, or thereabouts. One of the problems that we have had in immigration policy under successive Governments for a long time is a huge backlog in the number of people applying who wait for inordinate lengths of time to get their applications considered, and who are often not even in this country at the time they are awaiting that decision. Most of them have either remained overseas or been here and gone back to their place of origin awaiting an outcome. It is an unsatisfactory situation and no one could argue, in justice, that it is appropriate to lead people on for that length of time.

I find it ironic that now, having taken a stand that states that, at a certain point in time, applications that have not been processed will be allowed to lapse, the same people who argue about the delay argue about the high-handedness of putting a deadline in place.

As I understand it, this bill states that what the Government will do from here on in is to put in place a procedure whereby people who meet a certain level of points or criteria are put into a pool and from time to time the Government, based on its assessment of the numbers it wants to admit, will invite people from that pool to apply for permanent residence. There is no sinister suggestion that the Minister will look through the pool and say: “Oh, that one looks OK, but I don’t like the look of that one—don’t invite them.” Rather, if members look at the provisions of clause 7, in which the Government residence policy is set out—although the bill is not obliged to take account of that in every respect—they will see that the general criteria by which we seek to admit people to this country will be honoured. It is simply a vast leap of imagination to think that there will be some sinister plot by the Minister—either this Minister or any future Minister—to hand-pick the migrants who come to New Zealand. That is frankly absurd. It is interesting, despite the puff and the rhetoric of the previous speaker, that that is the only point of concern that the National Party raised about this bill during its examination by the select committee.

The previous speaker is correct: there was concern around the committee table about the issues that were raised with respect to human rights, justice, and the opportunities provided for applicants to be considered, and they have been addressed in the reworking of the legislation.

I want to make a comment about the New Zealand First position. I respected the contribution that Mr Jones made to the committee. By and large, it was a reasoned and informed one, which immediately singled it out from some of those of his colleagues. But it would be fair to say to him that this bill did not, at any time, seek to address numbers of migrants. This bill is about process. It is not about the actual policy that applies. Whether the number is a net increase of 10,000 per annum, as his party’s minority report suggests, or 45,000 per annum, as he claims the current policy is, it does not actually matter. The procedure that is being established by this bill will be essentially the same.

He can have his argument about immigration levels separately. This legislation is about the process for determining how that level of migration—20,000, 2,000, 10,000, or 100,000—is actually resolved. It has been designed to achieve—and I think the select committee, on balance, has come to a reasonable solution—to establish a situation that is relatively straightforward and relatively efficient in terms of the time it will take for the processing of applications, and that has, in an inherently uncertain environment, one of the highest levels of certainty possible.

Because people will go into a pool, it has an automatic element of uncertainty associated with it. Because they will then be selected, and let us be blunt about it, on the basis of the contribution that they can make to this country—and it is a good thing, surely, that we are getting the best of immigrants—there is an element of risk associated with that, as well. But leaving aside those elements, the process is as certain as it can be.

If we ever got to the situation that Dr Smith fears, in which a Minister was politically or in some other devious way manipulating the flood or flow or immigrants, very clear sanctions would apply. It would be absolutely obvious. The political reaction would be immediate and severe, and I suspect that that Minister would not survive in office for very long, at all.

So let us get realistic. This is not some great new sinister plan to flood the country with immigrants of a particular type. This is simply about saying that, since the mid-1990s, successive Governments have acknowledged that we have a problem in the sense that we have many more people seeking to come here for residence than we can readily and easily process. We need a better system than the current system, which has people stacked up in unreasonable hope for unreasonable periods of time.

It may well be that this is a vast and novel experiment. It may well be that it has not been tried by any other country. Neither of those things, by themselves, damns the measure. They certainly have not damned New Zealand Governments from adopting similar measures in the past. If that was our attitude, we would never have had the economic reforms of the 1980s, for a start.

I say that this bill is about process. It is a better bill because of the work that the select committee has done, which all the members of that committee participated in equally, and I am grateful for that. What is important now is that the message that is sent to potential migrants is that this country is a place that welcomes quality migration and that it values the input that migrants can have. This bill processes that, but a more important issue is that, while attitudes attacking immigration and migrants and trying to blame migrants for every conceivable social ill remain in the community, it does not matter what the process is, this will not be an attractive country to come to.

I say to members opposite who have played the immigration card for so long that we should not use this as the excuse for somehow blaming our immigrants. If we really value the contribution that they make and if we really believe that this can be a better society because of their contribution, as I do, we should seek to encourage their participation and involvement, and stop the dirty game-playing that has been going on for too long. This bill provides a way forward, and I believe that the House should proceed to adopt it.

The Auckland District Law Society made a submission on this bill that I referred to in the New Zealand First minority report. That submission has been totally ignored by the previous speaker and by Labour. The society said: “(i) the immigration system cannot be trusted”. So are we going to abuse the society now for being racist? The society also said: “(ii) the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner”. Will Mr Benson-Pope say that the society is racist for saying this bill can be used in a racist manner? The society went on to say: “(iii) the system could be open to corruption”. So we have a lack of trust in the immigration system—but we have that already; we know all about that—and we now have imposed on it a racist means of carrying out its work, and a system that is open to corruption. We know about the corruption already; many members of the staff are being sacked for it at the present time. The society also stated: “(iv) immigration officers could use the powers contained in the legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits or make special conditions etc unclearly or inaccurately or with ambiguity.” That is a criticism by the Auckland District Law Society.

All we have had from the United Future leader, Peter Dunne, the member for Ohariu-Belmont, who was speaking just before, is an attempt to justify his support for a racist, corrupt system that cannot be trusted. United Future and the Labour Party are hand in hand. He is merely trying to be the person who, this time, supports the Labour Party. If it is not United Future, it is the Greens. If it is not the Greens, it is United Future. A little dance takes place in this House: one time United Future will support the Labour Party, and the other time the Greens will. The only winner in this is the Labour Party. As I understand it, on this occasion the Greens have lodged a minority view, and will be opposing this bill. Peter Dunne has tried very hard to pretend that this is somehow a wonderful piece of legislation, when we all know that that is far from the truth. He is terribly embarrassed at having to make the speech that he has just made to try to justify his existence and his party’s existence as a partner with the Labour Party.

Let us take the view of Auckland Today magazine’s issue of August 2003. What is its view of this legislation? It states: “Future emigrants to New Zealand are more likely to come from Britain and South Africa than India and China, due to changes in the way points are allocated. Immigration specialists say these migrants will fit better into New Zealand workplaces, but they don’t believe the changes are racially motivated.” Well, if people believe that, they believe that pigs can fly. I say at this stage that this legislation is clearly open to the gravest possible abuse—probably more abuse than any other legislation that has come before this Parliament in its entire history of about 150 years. It is an absolute disgrace that this Labour Government and United Future should be supporting this legislation.

At the time I came into this House as a New Zealand First member, at the last election, the Progressive Coalition member used to make all sorts of comments about New Zealand First and its approach to immigration into New Zealand. Well, the boot is surely on the other foot today, because we have no more august body than the Auckland District Law Society pointing out to the Progressive Coalition member just who the racist is in so far as this legislation is concerned, and making that point to the Labour Party. I well remember Helen Clark at the last election making comments about New Zealand First’s immigration policy. Well, the Auckland District Law Society is telling Helen Clark that her policy is racist and cannot be trusted. Who would have believed, just 12 months ago, that I, as a New Zealand First member, would be standing up in this House and, on the evidence of Labour Party legislation, making that statement? It is true, and the Auckland District Law Society supports it—as do so many of the other witnesses.

For example, Mr Justin Glyn went further; he virtually compared this bill to the apartheid legislation of the South African Government. What Parliament is passing, according to Justin Glyn, is legislation similar to the South African Government’s apartheid legislation. Who would have said that the Labour Party would be putting legislation into this House that was similar to the apartheid legislation? That was the evidence of that submitter, and I made that point in New Zealand First’s minority report.

When we first heard all about this legislation, one of the things we heard was that it was supposed to remove the points system. I sat and listened to the officials discussing the matter, and we said to them: “Well, if you are not going to be racist, if you are not going to give Indians a better go over Chinese, or South Africans, or whatever, how are you going to distinguish between them?”. All the suggestions had been that there would be no points system, but, lo and behold, much to my amazement, the fact is the Government is not going back to the 1991 system; it is continuing the failed points system that the Labour Party said it was going to get rid of.

The Minister of Immigration, in her opening speech on this bill, said she was going to get rid of the points system. Well, she has not done that. In order to avoid any suggestion of racism or whatever, the Government has to adopt a points system to give effect to this type of legislation. The Minister really does not know what she is doing, and New Zealand First has said that time and time again. The Minister said at the first reading of the bill that the points system was going to go, and now we find the points system is going to stay and there is no change at all. One has to ask oneself what the point of this bill is, other than to reduce the load of applicants, which is 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000. I do not think the Immigration Service really knows how many applicants it has on its books. Of course, it loses applications every so often; loads of applications go astray and are lost. The Immigration Service does not know and, dare I say it, it probably does not care, because whenever applications are lost, there are 10,000 more to take their place. This desperate Labour Government has created a policy of 45,000-plus migrants coming to New Zealand, but it cannot administer it. It has no way of administering the system, other than suddenly, by legislative means, lapsing people’s applications.

When Mr Carter introduced the second reading of this bill, he said the Council of Trade Unions supported it. He said that Business New Zealand supported it. He was right when he said that Business New Zealand supported it. Of course Business New Zealand would support this legislation. It introduces cheap labour to New Zealand, which is good for people in the Business Roundtable and Business New Zealand. And that is what the Labour Party wants; it wants cheap labour coming into New Zealand.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Highly skilled labour.

We would not get 45,000 skilled people coming to New Zealand; we are getting people who can drive taxis and can pull pumps. I am sure the member goes home sometimes, and when he drives around Auckland he will find that, time and time again, the pump attendant at the service station is more likely to have come from Bombay India than from Bombay south Auckland—that is for sure. That is where that type of person comes from, and the member cannot tell me that that is a skilled immigrant.

The error that Mr Carter made—he merely read the speech provided from the department—was to suggest that the Council of Trade Unions supported this legislation. If we look carefully at that submission, I believe we will see that the Council of Trade Unions does not support the legislation. When we read its submission closely and carefully as I have done—clearly, Mr Carter has not read it at all, and the Minister and her staff have only taken words here and words there—when we read paragraphs such as 2.4, 2.6, and 2.7, it becomes very clear that the council says things like: “… but the CTU believes the issues of long-term labour supply are also intrinsically linked to education and skill development, fertility, economic development including workforce development, innovation, technology diffusion, wages and conditions, and so forth. It accepts the need for such shortages to be covered by immigration in the short term, but they are less persuaded that much higher levels of migration should be seen as the main policy instrument to ensure adequate labour supply in the future.”

There is very little difference between the policy of New Zealand First and that of the Council of Trade Unions. We made it quite clear in our 15 principles we issued on the founding of New Zealand First that our view on immigration is much the same as, and very close to, that of the Council of Trade Unions. In fact, if members read our minority report, they will see that paragraph (e) states that we believe: “… this legislation continues to facilitate the Government’s policy of excessive immigration … and is contrary to New Zealand First’s view which supports an infusion of overseas skills and expertise but not while we fail to train and improve the skills of our own people. Priority should be given only to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” That should be within a scheme of about 10,000 immigrants, not 45,000, who are causing soaring house prices, roading difficulties in Auckland, health difficulties in Auckland, and suchlike, without any compensating benefits.

The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, because we believe that it remains discriminatory and contrary to the principles of natural justice. We were very hopeful that at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee there would be an opportunity for real exploration of the issues, so that the policy and details could be thoroughly canvassed, but that was simply not possible because of the extremely tight time frame for the committee’s deliberations. In our view, present immigration policy is based on responsiveness to the labour market, for the purpose of economic advantage to New Zealand, and does not accommodate social and cultural benefits and cost analysis. Nor is it constructed in a mode of hospitality to immigrants.

Many of the changes the select committee made to the bill were a direct response to the concerns raised by submitters, and the Greens would like to thank all of those who made submissions for their rigorous contribution to such a sensitive issue. I want briefly to go through some of those submissions, which were not deeply canvassed in the select committee report. Submissions were received from very diverse interest groups, ranging from human rights groups to legal agencies and parties with business interests. Most submissions contained deeply held concerns about the bill. Those concerns went to the heart of whether the changes increased discriminatory and unjust processes.

The Council for Civil Liberties opposed the bill as breaching acceptable constitutional standards. The council appealed to the priority of democratic process. It considered that the proposed bill overweighs the discretionary power of the Immigration Service, at the expense of remedial processes available to those seeking residency. It was the view of the council that the modified review process in the bill would create uncertainty for applicants, with the likely outcome that the most desirable applicants under the present criteria—that is, those with the most desirable skills—would be less likely to apply.

The Human Rights Commission referred to the application procedure for those in New Zealand whose applications lapse, who are required to leave the country. The commission reviewed the Human Rights Act and raised many concerns that the proposed procedures would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act under the auspices of unfair procedures. Like the Council for Civil Liberties, the Human Rights Commission considered that changes made without consultation, warning, or access to appeal might constitute an unfair process. Changing the rules midway through a process was also a concern of the commission. Its submission commented that the spirit of natural justice and procedural fairness is lacking in this bill, although the strict, legalistic criteria may be met.

Business New Zealand had an approach from the other end of the spectrum to that of the Greens, and set out its view of supporting skilled migration into New Zealand, along with domestic skill development, to support the goal of economic growth. Although the Greens are committed to a broader approach to immigration than a solely economic imperative, we note that Business New Zealand in its submission considered that changes to the points required in the general skills category not only had created uncertainty for applicants—possibly dissuading the more discerning applicants—but also increasingly had created difficulties for an important group of skilled migrants, those skilled in the trades area. The submission emphasised that the skills of those groups are desperately needed in a range of industries. Applicants for immigration with these skills do not necessarily attract sufficient points to qualify.

Whereas Business New Zealand, the Council for Civil Liberties, and the Human Rights Commission emphasised the uncertainty for immigrants, the Auckland District Law Society agreed with those concerns but extended its opposition to the bill to include the further impact of uncertainty—that is, uncertainty for employers. With the prospect of applications being lapsed, employers are bound to be resistant to employing people with uncertain immigrant status. They will not want to make a human resource investment in them on the chance of their gaining permanent residency. If we continue to follow this line, the uncertainty for employers will exacerbate the inhumane uncertainty for the applicants. Overall, this and other substantial submissions considered that there has been a fragmentary approach to immigration revisions, and that they have been counterproductive to achieving greater flexibility in responsiveness to the New Zealand labour market. The Auckland District Law Society advocated a comprehensive and robust approach, rather than reactive measures that cause problems in statutory interpretation.

The bill was changed at the select committee, and many of those changes were very positive. One significant change was the deletion of the proposed subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 18C, in clause 13, so that the current rights of appeal for persons declined a visa or permit are retained. This ensures that there is some capacity for a review of the process for decisions to decline applications. But this appeal right will be available only for those applicants who have been invited to apply for residence. Those who have submitted expressions of interest are not entitled to a review of any part of the process for reaching a decision. In our view that is not satisfactory. Whether a person meets the criteria, and should therefore be invited to apply for residence, is a decision of an immigration or visa officer. The criteria for an invitation to apply are to be published as part of the residence policy. The Immigration Service has argued that the publication of those criteria will provide sufficient transparency and certainty of outcome. We are not so certain.

One of the criteria is having a job offer, which increases people’s points. We question whether this takes into account the well-known fact, which has been established in research, that the highest-ranking means of securing a job is through personal contacts. How can immigrants realistically avail themselves of job opportunities, given that that is a primary job-entry process? Furthermore, immigrants who speak English as a second language are at a disadvantage in New Zealand, where there are many anecdotal and published examples of employers screening out a job applicant when they hear that a prospective employee is a foreigner whose English may be limited or whose accent is rather thick. One submission stated that the bill was likely to disadvantage skilled applicants who failed to meet the International English Language Testing System language requirement of 6.5, even where those applicants met the skill shortage requirements.

We understand that the appeal rights of applicants will form part of the review of the Immigration Act that is to be held next year. It is good that it will be looked at again, although we are very concerned that the intention behind the removal of the appeal rights, in the original version of the bill, may be raised again in the review process, which may not be subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny.

The Greens support an approach to immigration that is beneficial to families and to community interests in New Zealand. Immigration will have an effect of increasing diversity here, and of not only strengthening the skill base but influencing the values and cultural make-up of New Zealand society. We consider the present economically driven approach to immigration policy, which focuses only on economic advantage, through skills criteria, to be an inadequate basis for assessment of immigrants. It has the effect of screening out qualities that may enrich New Zealand communities, such as multilingual skills; contributions to qualities associated with New Zealand, such as environmental conservation and indigenous development; and skills that not only are defined by job fit but take account of the family and cultural contributions that potential arrivals may bring. At present, the economic focus is an example of a silo approach.

The culture and ethos of New Zealand are changing with immigration, but there are no adequate attempts at a policy level to accommodate New Zealanders to these changes. There is a need for much stronger orientation provisions for immigrants in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and the historical and current issues with which tangata whenua are engaged. These orientation provisions need to be matched with educational provisions in New Zealand on these matters.

At present, the policy of economic criteria for immigration allows no responsibility to be placed on the Ministry of Immigration for the social and cultural effects that are inevitable with large changes to the component of the New Zealand population. What mechanisms have been established to avert negative attitudes from New Zealanders, and what provisions are there to assist immigrants to have respect for New Zealand values? The Greens welcome a review of immigration in which the social, cultural and economic effects are integrated. This would signal a fresh approach to policy where humanitarian considerations in respect of immigrants, and the beneficial influence of immigrants form the framework of policy on immigration.

I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this bill. It will support skilled immigration by maximising and accelerating its contribution to capacity building, sustainable growth, innovation, global connectedness, and thriving and inclusive communities.

I also want to support this bill. It has been very much welcomed in my electorate. People in my electorate are looking forward to its rapid passage through the House.

One can interpret those extraordinarily short calls only as an apology from the Labour members, who know that this is an appalling piece of legislation.

It is ironic that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon Chris Carter, is speaking in the reporting-back stage of this legislation, which was labelled by many submitters to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee as discriminatory legislation that will have a racist impact. It will limit the number of migrants from non - English-speaking environments. This same Minister, the Hon. Chris Carter, has visited many ethnic community functions and has taken his interpreter to interpret his speech in Chinese, Korean, and Hindi. Last November his Government increased the level of English required and that, together with this legislation, will firmly close the door on migrants from those areas. In many of his speeches he has said they are exactly the type of migrants that his Government would welcome. I put on record that we want to hear a lot more from that Minister to reconcile his public statements and the type of legislation that his Government brings in.

Ninety percent of the submitters who came before the select committee were against this legislation. It is clear to all the members on the select committee that this legislation was introduced as a result of a lack of leadership and competence by the Minister of Immigration and the officials of that department. This legislation brings in tools—namely, the invitation to apply and the lapsing provisions—that will undermine transparency, certainty, and fairness. Without those principles the immigration system will be subject to even more corruption and discrimination. The Hon Peter Dunne, the chairman of the select committee, chose to misrepresent my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who made it clear that National believes that immigration policy has to be objective and transparent. We certainly believe in a policy that has upfront criteria and has accountability.

But the select committee was told, particularly by the Association for Migration and Investment, that the large backlog that occurred last year at the application pool was not a result of the inflexibility of the current immigration policy but, rather, a result of an apparent lack of will to utilise the existing tool. We were told in February 2002 that the Immigration Service had used up the quota of approvals for immigration applications, and that no new ones could be approved until July 2002. But the Minister of Immigration refused to increase the passing marks until very late that year. As a result, a large backlog occurred. So the Minister of Immigration made the mistake and the potential migrants paid the price. She introduced, under urgency, legislation to lapse not 20,000 people, as pointed out by Peter Dunne, but 20,000 applications, which means about 46,000 people, and my latest information suggests that the number could be a lot higher. The Minister went on to say that those people had been affected by the lapsing provisions because they were not able to contribute to New Zealand, but those people’s applications had been accepted because her department, the Immigration Service, had specified those passing marks at that time.

The Minister is very fond of quoting one particular email, and in my hand I have quite a bundle of emails and letters from some of those people affected. I would like to share a couple with the public, just to let people know we are dealing with human beings. One of them, from a woman, states: “I find myself again at a crossroads in a great country known for its greatness to immigrants of all nations. It is formulating laws where innocent people become targets. I wonder how much security I will get after working so hard. It has disturbed my mental and physical peace.” Another one, from a male applicant, states: “Sir/Madam: This bears reference to the change in immigration policy by the New Zealand Government. The decision by your immigration ministry is callous and shocking. It has brought crisis to not only my professional life but also my personal life.” Many of these people have put their lives on hold while they wait for their applications to be processed.

Then the Minister of Immigration claimed that their application fees would be refunded, as though the Labour Government were being generous. That was an outrage. No work was done on those applications, so why should those fees not be refunded? But what about those people’s time? Some have waited for 2 years. The submission from the Auckland District Law Society had this to say on the lapsing provisions: “Decency and fair play have unfortunately given way to political expedience. Retrospective use”—[Interruption]—the Labour member might think Auckland District Law Society members are rubbish, but I beg to disagree—“of lapsing provisions and the enshrining of that in the current legislation amount to perhaps the most serious defeat of the rule of law, let alone section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

The Labour members might not agree with the Auckland District Law Society, but even their friend the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Ros Noonan, in her submission pointed out: “They are informed that such a discretionary invitation scheme does not exist in comparative overseas jurisdictions.” The Auckland District Law Society is a lot more forthright and upfront in telling the select committee that the bill creates a framework for unfettered and unprincipled decision-making. It went on to say: “With the introduction of the lapsing provision as well as the invitation to apply, there is no certainty left in the system. The immigration system cannot be trusted. This also sends a wider message to the rest of the world, making us look unreliable.” It is making New Zealanders look unreliable.

A lawyer, Mr Glyn, who practised law in South Africa, had this to say, and I think it is a sobering statement that Labour and United Future members should really listen to: “This bill infringes values regarded as fundamental in any democracy.” He went on to say: “Unfettered discretions and retrospective policy-forming power in this bill are reminiscent of powers found in much of South African legislation prior to the democratic election in 1994.” It is a sad day when this Parliament is debating the reporting back of legislation that was roundly condemned by about 90 percent of the submitters. Even in the very short and rushed time frame, those people found it necessary to make very strong statements in front of the select committee. I point out that the Korean Society and many Asian community members made submissions to the select committee that backed up those concerns about the racist impact that this legislation will have.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the debate, but there is a bit of feedback coming through the microphones. When my colleague Pansy Wong was speaking there was a lot of feedback. I do not know whether it is affecting other microphones, but it was certainly affecting her one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. Could the Sergeant-at-Arms check that out, please. I call the honourable member Steve Chadwick.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not here at the commencement of this debate, but you took Mr Dunne’s call as the third speaker in this debate. He spoke after Lockwood Smith, Mr Carter having opened for the Government. With respect, we will not accept that order in this House on such a critical issue—an issue that this party has staked its reputation on and campaigned on, and one about which there is a lot of interest in this country. Mr Dunne’s party did not get third in the last election. We did, and we will not accept you or your senior making up the rules as you go along.

I was here when the first MMP Parliament was started, and when Peter Tapsell was in the Chair as the then Speaker of this House. I know full well what the rules were then. They did not go on the idea that one could somehow conveniently sell or give away one’s spot—most certainly not under an MMP Parliament. Just in case anybody has forgotten, I can recall when there was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just make the point that the point of order should be terse and to the point. That is in Standing Order 84(3).

No, no, my point of order is very serious, and I will not give it up like that. We will not have the people’s will, set at the last election, changed by this Parliament or by anybody inside it. That goes to the heart of this democracy—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I wish to rule on this.

I have not finished yet. I have one last point to make to you. My last point is this. In this Parliament there used to be the right to concede a part of one’s speech for a colleague, and I know full well when that happened—in 1995. This Parliament, through its Speaker, decided to rule that out. Now, this is a very, very important issue. This Parliament decided that that could not be done, even though other Parliaments allow a member to yield and the time to be given over to a colleague. Now, of course, that has all been changed again, so parties can make their arrangements internally, and we have not argued against that. If the Greens want to run their two speakers in a 10-minute slot of 5 minutes each, that is fine by us. That does not foreclose on the 2002 election results. But this decision today does do that. I am outraged and insulted that on an issue that is so important to New Zealand First, and given that we were third at the last election, Mr Dunne should be the third speaker in this debate—or be way above the New Zealand First position. That is wrong.

I say quite clearly to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he is wrong in just about everything he has said. This is a decision that was taken at the Business Committee and referred to me for my consideration, and I have made a decision. The decision is that the third call goes to the Government, or that the Government can nominate someone to speak on its behalf when he or she is supporting the Government. The Government did that in this case, and it has an absolute right to do so. This list, now, is the list that will pertain for first, second, and third reading debates. That is it.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me submit that you are wrong on all counts. The fact that you have relied on the so-called Business Committee, which may conspire against one party in this country, provides no sanctuary or haven from which you can make that argument out. That is the first thing. The second thing is that Mr Dunne is not a part of the Government; every New Zealander knows that. So for you to say that the Government has the right to arrange the non-Government speakers is demonstrably wrong. The third thing I want to say is simply this. I want the kind of precedent I have seen in Europe followed here. Where a party is not a part of the Government—and the antecedents in Europe, in terms of MMP, are far longer than this country has ever had—then it does not get the precedence that Mr Dunne has assumed. I will not settle for a convenient arrangement because it happens to be what certain parties want.

There is somebody using a flash above me to take photographs. That person will immediately remove himself from the gallery, and I want to see the person concerned. That is not allowed in this House, at all. No one has sought my permission to do that. I apologise to the member, but I had to interrupt him because that occurred not once but about seven or eight times.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did not arrange that.

I realise that.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I just say that I think the photographer does not know what the rules are.

Well, he does now. He will not be doing that again in a hurry.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, using that as a precedent, I say that is a longstanding rule from which we have never deviated. Now I want to say that the same thing should apply in respect of the speaking order under MMP. It cannot be that on some days a certain thing happens, and on other days it does not happen. Either the people of this country decided the precedence accorded to the parties, or they did not. I just find it an absolute affront to have to sit here and have Mr Dunne, who is not a part of this Government, being given privileges by members of the Government. I understand the Government to be the Labour Party and Mr Anderton’s Progressive conservatives, and that is it. This is a minority Government—[Interruption] A Minister laughs, but this is known to be a minority Government because it does not have the United Future party’s support in the way that is being made out in this argument. I say that I want this matter to be reconsidered, because we find it to be a matter of grave unfairness in so far as the New Zealand First Party is concerned.

Well, let me just say that when the Business Committee considered this matter a member of New Zealand First was there—a senior member—and no objection was taken. In the end, it was a unanimous decision. I make that point very clearly. Secondly, of course we can always reconsider the decision. I am of course willing, if the member submits something to me in writing, to be reasonable and consider what he says. But at the present time I have instructed all the people who are in my position, when I am not here in the Chair, to adopt this list, and that is the way it will be at the moment.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have spoken to Mr Brown about this issue, and I will check again with him for his recollection of things. That is not the way he described them to me, but I will find out and report back to you on that.

I thank the member, and I invite him to put his comments in writing to me. I will look at that. But at the present time I am adopting this order, and I hereby rule that that will be the case.

Obviously, the previous speaker was also keen to add his support to this bill, and he is anxious to speak. This has been a long-awaited piece of legislation. The country is waiting for it, our electorate is waiting for it, and I am pleased to support it.

That was by way of a speech in support of legislation that is demonstrably bad for the people of Rotorua, for the Bay of Plenty, for the Māori people that she purports to represent, and for every New Zealander. The simple fact of the matter is that a recent survey—[Interruption] They can scream all they like, because they are nervous—showed that 84 percent of New Zealanders were against this bill. But why am I surprised that this Government carries on regardless? Government members are arrogant.

[Interruption] As for “solar dome” over there, he can make every smart alec comment he likes, but if I looked old before my time, I would shut up. If I looked like an old man in a hurry, I would keep quiet. A nonentity from Dunedin, who spent all his time sycophantically at the local authority, comes to this Parliament—the only promotion he will ever get is to be senior whip; he cannot be a Minister, he does not have the capacity—and sits over there making all the imitations of a walrus.

The reality is that 84 percent of New Zealanders are against this bill. [Interruption] The fiscal benefits, the economic benefits—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order.

No, Mr Speaker, I do not mind Mr Benson-Pope making a fool of himself. But I know that down in Dunedin they are against this bill. Down in the Deep South they are against this bill. All around New Zealand, the blue-collar worker—the poor guy or woman out there with three jobs, who wants to make a living, but cannot afford a home, cannot get an operation, cannot get an education, cannot get into his or her own town because of traffic jams—is against this bill. No amount of shouting on the part of the Labour Party will change my views on this bill.

Can members tell me why we have over 400 cases of TB in this country today, a disease we once thought we were on top of—when we were young, when once a decent party called Labour, and National, got on top of it? It was not like this present bunch of fly-by-night opportunists. We have over 400 cases of tuberculosis in this country. We have 500 babies born to foreign parents because they want to access our benefit system. I see ladies who cannot get a cataract operation, or a hip operation.

The Labour Party poses as the working man’s friend. Labour members would not know what a working man looked like. Look at their hands and appearance—soft, arrogant, useless! They would not know a worker if they saw one. They come here every day and sell out the working people of New Zealand. That is why, in 2 years’ time, these marshmallow milksops will be out, and they will not be laughing then. Oh, no, they will be down to the job queue then. I hope they have a long time on the job queue, because they are not competent to do anything else.

How come we have New Zealanders who cannot buy a home any more in this country? How come the price of houses in Auckland is going through the roof—up 20 percent in 1 year? What person can save that sort of deposit? I bet David Cunliffe cannot.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I bet I cannot.

I bet he cannot. House prices are rising 20 percent in 1 year—what young New Zealander can save that fast? I bet they cannot. Why do I ask them what the working man, working woman, and middle New Zealand think? They would not know about that. This is a strange, queer, odd bunch—an odd assortment. They are not normal, not usual.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It’s Pauline Hanson back again!

If I were gay and wanted a home, they would have a policy for that. If I were gay and wanted to get into hospital, they would have a policy for that. But when it comes to ordinary, hardworking, normal New Zealanders, “No thank you” is the Labour Party’s message. House prices are skyrocketing, and there are long waiting lists in our hospitals.

Why do I read in the last Ministry of Social Development report that 7,000 of the people looking for work are recent immigrants, and that in Auckland, 12,000 migrants are known to be unemployed? If I worked selling cars for a Mercedes Benz company in Auckland, how come I would find people of Asian extraction in the main giving me $140,000 in cash?

💬 Government Member: Cash?

Not cheques—straight cash. Do members think that the Inland Revenue Department knows about that? We have an economy going on in this country that those people know nothing about. In Tauranga—and in Hawke's Bay—we are losing tens and tens of millions of dollars a year because picking and pruning in the horticulture industry is controlled by fly-by-night foreigners who do not pay PAYE, accident compensation, and the taxes of the ordinary workers. The Inland Revenue Department has reported to those people over there, and they do not want to know.

Government members have predicated the future on a massive growth rate and immigration. Do members know how many people have gone to Australia from overseas for the last 10 years? Each year, 82,000 go to Australia; for New Zealand last year—a country seven times smaller—the figure was 72,500. [Interruption] As for the Minister of Police, he can make those sorts of noises. He is the most incompetent Minister of Police this country has ever seen. Crime is going through the roof.

💬 Dail Jones: In his electorate.

Yes, in his electorate. The fastest growing industry is the security industry, because he cannot do his job. Fifty-two percent of the people who are burgled in this country do not report the burglary. Of the people who do, he resolves 40 percent. If I were that incompetent, I would resign tomorrow. I would go back to being the incompetent mayor I once was. [Interruption] We can always tell when we have struck a nerve in this Parliament—Government members start shouting and try to over-talk us. They make the noises of animals—not just the noises, but the smells as well.

The reality is that we have a hopeless Minister of Immigration. This Minister is so hopeless that the bill comes back and I did not see her speak to it. This bill is so bad that Lianne Dalziel, the Minister of Immigration, will not make a speech about it. She puts up Chris Carter, the Minister of Ethnic Affairs. I do not know what sort of ethnic affair that is, but we do not want a part of it. We do not want a bar of that sort of ethnic affair. We like things upfront.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: We know you like things upfront.

Not around the back, like George. If those gentlemen cannot take it, they should not dish it out. We can, and we have a black book as long as their arm. If they want to get smart, then we are the people—Interruption] As Elvis Presley once said: “If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.”

We have a Minister who is not prepared to defend her own bill. That is why it should be thrown out. The fact that the parliamentary lapdog, United Future, votes for it is neither here nor there.