Immigration Amendment Bill

I hope you will allow ample time for debate of this legislation, now also including the Supplementary Order Paper that the members have had little time to examine. I hope we will have time to raise that during this debate. During the last 2 months the Labour Government has brought in a series of Immigration Amendment Bills to such an extent that most people are confused about what these amendments are. So I have introduced two amendments to this title clause. First, I suggest that we should insert the words “Immigration Amendment (Workload Management) Bill”. The reason I suggest that is that although the Minister introduced this Immigration Amendment Bill as a sweeping change, saying that from now on we will have a new policy that migrants can be welcome in New Zealand only if they can contribute to New Zealand—of course, we know that that was the intention of the immigration system for a long time—the interesting thing is that during the select committee stage the officials told us that the changes really were superficial. It really was only a change to give them additional tools—whenever they face a build-up of workload, they can use this invitation to apply tools to reject the expressions of interest that accumulate in the pool, and also by using a lapsing provision from time to time, to invalidate the number of applications or expressions of interest in the immigration pool.

I thought the Minister might not have given clear instruction to the official who told the select committee that this bill was really in substance to continue with the existing immigration points system, but only that it will be less transparent, and introduce additional tools to enable officials to lapse an application. It would be more appropriate to signal this bill’s title as the “Immigration Amendment (Workload Management) Bill”. At least it would be a bit more informative of the intention.

I have also discovered this article in the Socialist Worker Monthly Review that says: “The Labour Government’s new racist policy will see Asian immigrants on the current waiting list told they are not welcome in New Zealand.” The article went on to say: “These new rules will clearly advantage migrants from the US, Britain and South Africa white Europeans. A fact admitted by immigration consultants.”

So I have also submitted a second amendment to the title clause, saying that the title of this bill should be the “Immigration Amendment (Asians Beware) Bill”. Potential Asian migrants should be made aware of the changes in this bill, because they need to take great care before they incur a lot of time and expenditure in submitting a so-called expression of interest. Many submissions that we heard in the select committee, including from the Human Rights Commission and the Auckland Law Society, made it clear that they believed that this immigration legislation, no matter how it was worded, would have the practical impact that migrants from Asian countries or non-English-speaking backgrounds would be disadvantaged. I have also introduced this amendment to make sure this Immigration Amendment Bill’s intention is clear, by inserting the words “Asians Beware”.

The Socialist Worker Monthly Review also went on to say that migrants also would have a greater chance of acceptance if they could pre-arrange a job prior to arrival. Therefore, according to a prominent immigration consultant, David Cooper, this requirement would again favour European applicants who fit into the workplace.

It is unusual to take a call on the title debate, simply because it is such a narrow debate, but I will not sit in this House and allow that member to produce an amendment, without a comment from me. The suggestion to insert the words “Asians Beware” is insulting and contemptible, and that member does her people no good whatsoever, by presenting this fictitious, nasty piece of work in this House.

💬 Pansy Wong: It is in the Socialist Worker Monthly Review.

It is interesting that the member uses the Socialist Worker magazine to promote her cause. I have not read the particular article that the member refers to, but I want to tell this House that there is nothing in this Immigration Amendment Bill that in any way impacts on one particular group over another. This bill is all about changing a general skills points system that gave people residence in this country, regardless of whether their skills were even needed in this country, and regardless of whether they would ever get work in this country. I could table 100 articles for every one that that member has tabled, showing the cases of despair from Asian people who have moved from their own countries to New Zealand believing that they have an opportunity and a future in this country. For goodness’ sake, the Minister of Health has had to expend—I ask the Minister of Health to help me out—$11 million—

💬 Hon Annette King: $11.9 million.

—on a programme just to help a few of the immigrant doctors who came into this country from other countries, under that member’s party’s policy that allowed those people to come in without any chance of ever working. This legislation is about making sure that skilled migration benefits skilled migrants, benefits this country, and it is insulting of that member to suggest anything else.

My advice to the Minister in the chair is to have a nice cup of tea and a lie-down before she does herself an injury. It is going to be a long afternoon and she needs to compose herself.

💬 Hon Annette King: I think the member should take something to cheer him up.

Seeing the Minister of Health looking silly in the House always cheers me up. She would know full well that in the absence of some sensible decision-making by her the provisions contained in the bill will not do anything to stop medical practitioners coming into New Zealand, being unable to work, and “forced to drive taxis”—to use the expression advanced by the Minister in the chair.

💬 Hon Annette King: Fortunately, we’ve fixed it.

While the Minister of Health’s interjection is not germane to the title debate, I will respond by saying that she will be under scrutiny in that area. She has dined out for a long time on the notion of inheriting somebody else’s problem. The clock has ticked well past the point where she can pretend that somebody else is responsible for the shortcomings in her portfolio. I have constituents who would like to work in the health system and are appropriately qualified to do so. I know that the inaction of that Minister has a lot more to do with those problems than any previous immigration policy.

The bill before the Committee today, the Immigration Amendment Bill—the principal Act being the Immigration Act—has very important implications for New Zealand. It covers an area where people make important decisions about their future, believing that they will be dealing with a party that will behave honourably. The concerns expressed by my colleague Pansy Wong might not be concerns that the Minister will be enthralled to hear in the Chamber today. Nevertheless, they are real concerns felt by real people making life decisions and believing that they are not being dealt with honourably by the party on the other side—namely, the New Zealand Government, and, specifically, the Minister of Immigration. I want to tell the Minister that this debate needs to be taken seriously. The scrutiny Opposition members will place upon her actions in relation to this bill, and her subsequent actions as Minister—because this legislation will give her considerable power to make decisions—will focus particularly around whether the New Zealand Government is portraying itself as a party that does business honourably.

In looking at the title, it is important that members understand the historical context of this legislation. In many ways, the contents of the bill have previously been in New Zealand law. The bill contains policies that, in large measure, New Zealand has seen in action during the 1980s. The powers provided by the bill are, very substantially, powers that have been in the hands of Ministers in the past and were found wanting. They depend in very large measure on the ability of Ministers and officials to behave honourably, to read marketplaces well, and to execute changes quickly and professionally.

The reason that the previous legislation, the Immigration Act, was passed was that there was thought to be too much room for uncertainty and discretion in a system that depended upon Ministers and officials to make decisions. It was thought desirable that there should be greater clarity and certainty for parties whose applications were being considered by the Government.

New Zealand First opposes this legislation, which allows the continuation of the Government’s current policy of allowing about 45,000 immigrants per annum into New Zealand under various residency policies. New Zealand is under great stress because of the high levels of immigrants entering this country under the policies currently set out by the Labour Government.

The Government needs to take stock of the following issues that are affecting our country. The first is the effect on the country of the estimated $7,954 per year it costs for a refugee to stay in New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It seems that members are going much wider than the title debate allows. This is one of those debates that is meant to be strictly controlled. If members wish to move off this clause, we will deal with it and go into the substance of the bill. The member should restrict his debate to the title only please.

Reasons for opposing this legislation are that the number of new residency permits granted should be in the vicinity of 10,000 per annum—not the figure set out in the Government’s policy and allowed to continue in terms of this legislation.

💬 Jill Pettis: You’re not talking about the title.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: You carry on.

I thank Mr Prebble. For example, the Auckland District Law Society gave evidence that the immigration system cannot be trusted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member must stick strictly to the title of this bill and not wander outside it. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings require the Chair to stick strictly to that ruling. I have allowed a little bit of leeway both ways, but we need to move on to the title only; otherwise we shall move into the bill itself.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: We’ve had two wide speeches from the National Party.

Thank you, Mr Prebble. Coming back to the title, I point out that New Zealand First will oppose the title.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Just tell us why.

OK. The reason we are opposing the title is the stress put on this country by a huge underground and fraudulent immigration industry in New Zealand, an example of which is the fake English language certificate scam revealed in the Assignment programme last year. There are many more.

The Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing, and the incoming Minister of Immigration Service, found that the repercussions of the Government’s immigration policy were creating undue strain. Violent crime committed by Asians has risen 67 percent in the last 5 years, compared with only 9 percent by Caucasians, 9 percent by Māori, and 5 percent by Pacific Islanders. Violent crimes committed by those born in China have risen by 297 percent in the last 5 years. Crimes of dishonesty by Asians have risen 167 percent in the last 5 years, compared to a drop of 5.4 percent amongst Māori, 4.8 percent amongst Caucasians, and a 5 percent rise amongst Pacific Islanders.

Extortion-type crimes committed by Asians in Auckland City have increased 760 percent in the last 3 years, to the point where one Auckland judge asked whether it was “kidnap week”. Senior constables from around the country are saying that Asian crime is a huge problem. Top Chinese officials state that young Asians are getting hooked on crime in this country, and still the Minister denies that there is a problem that needs to be addressed under this bill.

The Māori population, of course, is under threat. Māori must be concerned about the current rate of immigration into the country.

Before I start to speak to the title, I thank the Minister for allowing me a briefing from officials about the Supplementary Order Paper, which we will get to later. As a result of that briefing, the ACT party supports the Supplementary Order Paper.

Taking the bill as a whole, I believe that the Committee should seriously consider the amendment suggested by Pansy Wong. I wonder whether New Zealand First members have read the bill, because one of the two speakers has to be wrong. Pansy Wong says this bill is directed at reducing the amount of Asian migration into the country, and that is why she will vote against it, but New Zealand First members say that they will vote against it because there are too many Asians in the country. One of the speakers has to be right, or wrong.

I do not know whether New Zealand First supports the amendment, but reading the New Zealand First minority view to the committee, one has to hand it to them. One of the reasons they will vote against the bill is that “the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner”. That is exactly what I thought Mr Peters has been advocating. Surely he has been saying that we have too many Asians in New Zealand. Here is a bill, which, he says—shock, horror—could be used in a discriminatory manner. That is what the party wants it to do.

I just come back to the question of whether they should be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment.

💬 Craig McNair: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member who was just speaking to this bill claims something that New Zealand First has never talked about, and the New Zealand First leader has not talked about.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

I assure the member that I was at a meeting where he most certainly did that.

However, I want to come back to the bill itself and say that what it actually does is move away from a points system, which was designed to be neutral, and goes back to a system of using discretions. I have been in this Parliament long enough to remember that immigration system, and the fact that it did not work. It has been abandoned by all the immigration nations. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have all concluded that those methods do not work. I say that the Immigration Amendment Bill will have an impact on who comes to New Zealand. There is no doubt that it will discriminate against Asians who are attempting to migrate.

I also take up the point made by Mr McCully that to move from one country to another is a huge thing. It is a very big commitment, and people have put their lives on hold for years. Those people waiting on the list were given, in effect, an undertaking that because they had the number of points and had met the criteria, they would be able to come. As a result of this bill, those people can be simply wiped off—there is no way of getting around that. It is my view—[Interruption]. That is why I am supporting the amendment. The people who will be wiped off—and I want the Minister to confirm this—will be predominantly Chinese. Over half of them—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, I never said that.

I know the Minister has not. I am saying it. I want the Minister to get up and refute it.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It is not true.

The Minister says from the chair that it is not true. Seeing that she is able to make that statement, I would be very interested to know whether she will take another call and tell us what the ethnic make up is of the people who will be taken off the list.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Not in the title debate, dear.

It is very nice of the Minister to call me “dear”. It will probably start rumours around the whole country.

💬 Rodney Hide: That’s defamatory.

Some say it is defamatory, but I prefer to take it in a different way. The question most certainly is relevant, because without a clear statement from the Minister, the ACT party intends to support the amendment moved by Pansy Wong. We think this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the campaigning of Mr Winston Peters and his party. We do not believe that the Government had any intention of introducing this bill prior to the great shock it had last election. We think that this bill has been designed for base party political reasons to try to shore up the Labour Party’s vote in some parts of New Zealand, which is being carved off by New Zealand First.

I note that New Zealand First is still voting against this bill, but it is my view that this is a bill Mr Peters himself could have drafted without any difficulty. I think Mr Peters is in favour of the bill, due to the fact that he thinks it is discriminatory, and for that reason I am intending to vote against it.

I was not going to take a call on the title, but after hearing some of the words from the Opposition I decided that I would. Perhaps we should call the bill the “United Future (A Breath of Fresh Air) Bill”, because people in this nation have been waiting for a party such as United Future to arise in their midst, and members will note that it is rising. The bill should be titled the “United Future (A Breath of Fresh Air) Bill” because it is refreshing for the people of New Zealand to have a party that can look at legislation as it comes through the House and decide whether it is best for the country. That is what we were elected to this Parliament for. We were elected to make decisions that would make a better New Zealand.

What a name “United Future” is for a party that wants a better future for New Zealand, and immigration will always be part of the build-up of New Zealand. We welcome people from all races into this nation, but we have a culture and a set of standards. There will be different times and different seasons in our nation when we will need different types of skills, and that is what this bill is all about—the “United Future (A Breath of Fresh Air) Bill”. I make the point that there are many people walking the streets of New Zealand—the man on the street and the woman on the street—who will welcome this bill because, again, we are building a great New Zealand with a united future.

I move, That the question be now put.

In speaking on the title I would like to question the member who has just resumed his seat. Mr Adams was a very, very good rally driver. I even competed against him. But, when it comes to understanding what he has just told this Committee, he has missed it horribly. He has just told the Committee that this legislation will enable New Zealand to discriminate on the basis of culture. He told the Committee that we have a certain culture here and that we want people who fit that culture.

That is the problem with the title of this bill—the Immigration Amendment Bill. It tells us nothing of what the legislation does. When we look at it, we see that the heart of this legislation is the power it gives the Minister to issue an invitation to apply for residence. Clause 6 gives the Minister that power. That power, in itself, gives the Minister the power to discriminate, and that is why the title is totally off course. It does not capture what this bill enables.

One way of accurately capturing what the bill does would be to have the bill entitled the “Immigration Amendment (Invitation to Apply) Bill”, because one of the fundamental things the bill does is set up a system enabling the Minister to invite people to apply for residence. That is one neutral title that would be possible, but from listening to the submissions at the select committee I suggest a more appropriate title might be the “Immigration Amendment (Corruption) Bill”, because several key players, such as the Auckland District Law Society, warned us that this legislation will lead to corruption. It gives the Minister such unfettered power and it gives her officials, who are already under investigation for allegedly lying in unison, huge power.

My good colleague Pansy Wong has already suggested that the bill should be the “Immigration Amendment (Asians Beware) Bill”. Again, that captures the huge concern of the Opposition, which is what the United Future member, who has just resumed his seat, seems to overlook totally. With the best of intentions maybe one could make this system work, but the problem is that in politics it never works that way. In politics and in Government, if we run risks of discrimination or if we run risks of murky, non-transparent systems, we will get corruption. One of the reasons New Zealand is free of corruption is that we have transparent systems. But if we were to bring in this kind of measure—and we heard United Future talking about using this legislation to enable immigrants to better match our culture—we would see the very dangers of discrimination. That is why another possible title for this bill is “Immigration Amendment (Discrimination) Bill”. That is not being derogatory, because it gives the Minister the power to discriminate.

United Future should think very carefully—before it supports this legislation—about that issue, because its members, I believe, are good Christian, common-sense people. But how can good Christian people consider it acceptable to say that, just because some prospective immigrant’s culture is different from ours—no matter what the immigrant’s skills are or how valuable a contribution he or she could make to New Zealand—that person should be discriminated against and not be invited to apply for residence? That is what was implied by the previous contribution from United Future. I want United Future members, as Christian people, to think about what they have just said to the Committee about that potential to discriminate—even on the basis of beliefs. There could be a Minister who was anti-Christian and who might discriminate against people if they were fundamentalists. This legislation enables people to be discriminated against for all kinds of reasons. I am not sure whether United Future really believes that that view is good for New Zealand and good for the decent society that we hope New Zealand should be. That is why the title of this bill is totally inadequate; it does not capture what this legislation will enable this Government to do.

I move, That the question be now put.