Immigration Amendment Bill

I will also put forward an amendment to this part of the bill. One of the constant criticisms that we heard from the submitters—who actually represent 90 percent of the submissions—who came to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee expressed concern that this bill, if passed, would damage the credibility of New Zealand’s reputation in terms of confidence and the certainty of our immigration system. I think this is very important, and I particularly want United Future to consider it. United Future is a party that claims to be concerned about the interests of New Zealand and our standing in the international world, so I want its members to consider and support this amendment, to add a new subclause to clause 3: “(d) ensure the transparency and certainty of immigration policies to maintain the international credibility of the New Zealand immigration system.”

I cannot imagine that any party or anybody would not accept an amendment for something that is very obvious. The immigration system is a very important integral part of the legislation of a country. Part of the concern about the immigration system undoubtedly is about the lack of transparency. When an immigration policy, or the way it is being implemented, shows a lack of transparency and a lack of integrity, then undoubtedly the doors will be wide open to corruption.

One can imagine that, before very long, New Zealand will see a market price for obtaining letters of invitation for people to apply. As the Human Rights Commission stated to the select committee, those letters of invitation to apply are unprecedented anywhere in the world. The commission did not know of anywhere else where that mechanism exists.

The Immigration Service is already under a cloud because of the investigation into the “lie in unison” matter. What confidence can the public and potential applicants have, when additional powers are awarded to the service so that it does not have to explain to potential applicants why their applications will not even be considered, why they will not receive letters of invitation, and why there will be no appeal?

We were told during the select committee process that 67 percent of the appeals by applicants would succeed because of different technical interpretations between the Immigration Service and the applicant. So that is a very, very serious issue facing New Zealand. Does Parliament want to pass legislation that will increase the possibility of our Immigration Service being tarnished by that lack of transparency, so that the doors will open wide for corruption and corruptive practices? When that image is damaged internationally it will cost New Zealand dearly, in terms of taking measures to regain the reputation of operating a transparent and credible immigration system, in which both potential migrants and New Zealanders will know what criteria are being exercised.

I hope that the various parties in the House will see this amendment as necessary to maintain the credibility of our country’s reputation if we are serious about attracting quality migrants. Those people would not want to apply under a system where they might spend lots of time and make financial commitments, without knowing why they might not even be considered.

New Zealand First has indicated its opposition to the Immigration Amendment Bill. Part 1 covers clause 2, “Commencement”, and clause 3, “Objects of Act”. There are no wider or more important provisions in any legislation than the objects of that legislation, which are covered here in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of clause 3. I mention at this stage that about five New Zealand First members are hoping to take the call in this debate, particularly on this part, which is of vital importance to New Zealand First and to the people of New Zealand.

I have put forward an amendment to clause 3(c). That paragraph states: “allow for Government residence policy that will better enable the selection and active recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution to New Zealand and settle well in New Zealand.” My amendment adds: “such migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand, such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” That was the promise we had from the Minister of Immigration when she introduced this bill. She told us then that the days of immigrants having to have points were being abolished, and that she would match job vacancies with people coming to New Zealand. She has found, of course, that that policy of hers was doomed to failure even as she uttered the words, because the Immigration Service is in an absolute mess. It has anywhere between 40,000 and 80,000 applications. It has written off 20,000 applications, about another 8,000 are falling by the wayside, and it has even lost some in its warehouse.

As a matter of interest, New Zealand First’s view is very close to that of the Council of Trade Unions. That is hardly surprising, because we want to make sure, as does the Council of Trade Unions, that people who come to New Zealand actually have a proper job. We do not want people coming to New Zealand as doctors and ending up as taxi-drivers. This bill, as it stands, does not do anything about that. We want to make sure that, as the Council of Trade Unions stated in 2.1(a) of its comments, with regard to the objects of the legislation: “There needs to be a balance between immigration and investment in skill development, training, and pre-employment initiatives for those already here.” That is New Zealand First’s policy. The Council of Trade Unions is quoting New Zealand First policy. It goes on to state that it supports immigration policies that are consistent with workforce and skill development strategies, rather than those that act as quick fixes to recruitment and retention problems. [Interruption]

Mr Rodney Hide is interjecting. He supports the Business New Zealand policy, which is to bring into New Zealand as many people as possible, bring down wages, and allow the rich, who support the ACT party, to do very well from New Zealand having a low-wage policy. That is the ACT party’s policy.

💬 Darren Hughes: No one supports the ACT party.

Mr Darren Hughes, the member for Otaki, can smile, but that is the policy he supports, because the Labour Party supports the Business New Zealand policy of ripping off the workers. That is what it boils down to.

We in New Zealand First have made it very clear that we want people to come to New Zealand, but we want to make sure—[Interruption] I have been called worse than that; it does not worry me; that is that member’s sense of humour. New Zealand First has made it quite clear that we support the Council of Trade Unions’ view that the issues of long-term labour supply are intrinsically linked to education and skill development, fertility, economic development—including workforce development—innovation, technology diffusion, wages and conditions, and so forth. The support of the Council of Trade Unions for this legislation is very, very qualified support. It is telling the Labour Party, as are the workers of this country, that the workers of this country are concerned that their jobs are on the line. Their jobs are going to overseas immigrants who provide cheap labour, and that is supported by ACT and Business New Zealand. ACT, Business New Zealand, and the Labour Party can join together and support this bill, but New Zealand First is concerned that workers’ rights are left out of this legislation.

💬 Rodney Hide: What about the workers?

One never hears anyone from the Labour Party saying “What about the workers?” any more. Members of that party do not care two hoots about the workers of this country. As the Council of Trade Unions has indicated, and as we have said in the 15 principles of New Zealand First, the basic principles of the foundation of our party, priority should be given to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary.

On behalf of United Future, I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to say to the Hon Lockwood Smith that New Zealand does indeed have a culture, and one that I am proud of. People who immigrate to our country need to know that they need to fit in with it.

Clause 3 states that the Act will provide the legislative framework to enable residence policy to be based on New Zealand’s needs, rather than on an entitlement system. New Zealand does have needs. I am an employer. Currently, I cannot get mechanics. Therefore, we need an immigration policy that is based on what we currently need in the country. That is just common sense.

💬 Rodney Hide: Conflict of interest.

I ask Mr Hide whether we want workers and the economy to prosper. Do we want workers to be able to work here? I thought that was ACT party policy. The first thing to note is that, unlike other portfolio areas that are founded on fairly prescriptive legislation, the real substance of immigration policy is contained in the standard operating procedures and criteria that are collected in a manual and used by immigration officers while assessing applications. This bill facilitates that process, rather than spelling out what immigration policy will be, and that is why it may be difficult for some to understand the impact of this legislation.

It puzzles me that New Zealand First would vote against the bill, because, as clause 3 states, it enhances the Immigration Act as a mechanism by which residence policy can be facilitated. So if there is a miracle—and I do happen to believe in miracles—and New Zealand First is ever in a position once again to sit on the Treasury benches and control immigration policy, this measure would assist it to introduce its policy. So why on earth would those members vote against it? Never mind—politics is a strange business.

The objects clause also explains that the idea behind the bill is to allow the Government to get smarter about whom it selects as residents. If one looks at New Zealand First policy from the last election, it becomes quite clear that it should be supporting this bill. Maybe the promises made at election time do not mean anything. The New Zealand First policy stated: “New Zealand First will give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional, economic, and social goals.” That is exactly the kind of policy this bill facilitates. New Zealand First is clearly betraying all those misguided people who voted for it at the last election, by not supporting this bill.

What is its excuse? New Zealand First stated in the select committee report that this bill does not reduce the overall number of immigrants into this country. That is a completely misleading defence, given that that is quite outside the intended scope of the bill. New Zealand First is trying to cover the fact that the Government is doing something about immigration with the help of United Future. [Interruption] Can we fix it? Yes, we have. This was one of Winston Peters’ three fingers in the last campaign; by not supporting this bill, New Zealand First is giving two fingers to the voters. The object of the bill is not to reduce the overall number of people who gain residence here, but, essentially, to add a new filter to the application process to enable the selection and recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution to New Zealand. Although the Government is inviting people to apply, only the number of applications provided for in the New Zealand immigration programme will be considered.

The Government does need to do a much better job at communicating the objectives of the bill to the public and prospective applicants. Reading through the select committee report, I found it interesting to note the number of concerns about the bill put forward by submitters, but the number of amendments that emerged as a result was quite modest. This is because those concerns were effectively addressed, as one would realise if one understood the objects of this bill and the context of immigration policy. But I was quite happy to see that the committee also recognised the need to keep applicants informed.

I will speak briefly to Part 1. I am looking at the amendment in Pansy Wong’s name. I think she has made some good points. If we can accommodate those, then we certainly will attempt to do so.

I think it is important for people to realise that the bill and the objects in clause 3 are about explaining what is being replaced with what. The general skills category, which was originally introduced in 1991, is being replaced with a new skilled migrant category. This bill facilitates that particular change. It does change the way we do things. Instead of the process starting off with an application that leads to absolute entitlement to residence in our country, we are moving away from entitlement to an “invitation to apply” situation based on people’s expressions of interest that is run on a points system. To put it bluntly, this is the best of both worlds. This is the best of what preceded the 1991 changes and, indeed, the 1991 skills category, as it was known at the time—subsequently it was changed to the general skills category. A points system that is very transparent and open will be the precursor to the invitation to apply. It will not be based on an individual officer’s discretion as to the particular place that the individual came from, where that person was born, or his or her religious background—or any of the nonsense we have heard from the other side. That was made very clear at the select committee.

The reason we are establishing this legislative framework to move away from the entitlement model is that all through the 1990s, and, indeed, still today, people have moved here under the skills category who can never be employed in New Zealand in the field of expertise in which they have qualifications or experience.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Well, change the points system.

The member interjects to say that the Government of the day changed the rule. Yes, it is true. In 1991 the skills category came into effect. Four years later, in 1995, the requirement that individuals, before they got their immigration points, be registered with the bodies they are required to be registered with in order to practise in New Zealand was finally implemented, but it did not help a single skilled migrant who did not need registration in law but needed it in practice.

So I am a little bit sick and tired of people telling only half the story. Literally thousands of people in this country believed that New Zealand had something to offer them. They sold up their homes, they moved their families from one side of the world to the other, and today they are disappointed and disgusted with the decision they made because they believed that New Zealand wanted them, needed them, and had something to offer them, when we had nothing to offer them when they arrived in this country. The 1990s were a very sad and sorry time in immigration policy in this country. Those who were responsible for immigration policy during the 1990s should look to themselves before making criticism of a policy that is designed to ensure that New Zealand’s interests are paramount. In determining that New Zealand’s interests are paramount, we are ensuring that the benefit will be shared with the skilled migrants, because the skilled migrants will be coming to New Zealand because we need them here.

Listening to the early part of the discussion on Part 1, I was intrigued to see that Mr Adams, on behalf of United Future, was very quick to put up his hand and claim some responsibility jointly with the Minister of Immigration for this legislation. But I noted he was silent on the question I had asked earlier, which was whether his party was one of the Government caucuses referred to in the letter from the Minister that sought acquiescence in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 131, which will come before the Committee in relation to Part 2. Maybe next time Mr Adams gets to his feet he will do the Committee the courtesy of giving it an honest answer to a fair question. He stood up and claimed credit, then, in trying to work out what he was taking credit for, fumbled his way through a bunch of research unit notes, which he clearly had not read before and of which he had no understanding.

I say to Mr Adams that next time he decides to address the Committee, we would be obliged to him if he was to answer the perfectly legitimate question that I asked him, which was whether the United Future caucus was one of the caucuses that the Minister has told other leaders she consulted and got approval from in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that inserts a new clause 15A. It is a perfectly fair question. Was he awake in the caucus meeting this morning? He does not even know whether he was there, let alone whether he was awake. It looks rather good, does it not?

What I want to say in relation to Part 1 is that—[Interruption] The member has decided to come back into the Chamber, having had Parliament retrospectively validate his presence here. If the member wants to take a call, he can take a call, but it would be the first time he made any sort of contribution in the Chamber to a subject of this complexity.

Part 1 is a very important part of this bill, because clause 3 spells out some of the objects of this legislation. The piece that I want to refer to in particular, with approval, is the statement that “… New Zealand’s interests are paramount, as opposed to the present entitlement model;”. I am not sure what “entitlement model” actually means; I have heard the Minister use the expression a few times, and I do not have a particularly partisan view about it. I actually like to see the statement that New Zealand’s interests are paramount and the basis of our immigration policy. I certainly approve of that, and, indeed, I advocated something similar in a discussion paper that I circulated within my own party a little while ago, so I do not have any problem with it. But paragraph (b) of clause 3 states: “provide greater control over, and more effective management of, the quality and number of applications for residence visas and residence permits;”, and that is the bit I have some questions about. [Interruption]

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: He needs an empty glass of water not a full one.

I need someone to taste this before I am prepared to drink it.

💬 Rodney Hide: Turn it into wine.

I wonder whether Mr Hide might like to nominate a food taster for me.

I think the key questions in relation to this bill can be summed up by reference to paragraph (b) of clause 3. The question one has to ask is who will have greater control over, and exercise more effective management of, the quality and number of applications for residence visas and residence permits. To me, that seems to go to the very heart of this legislation. The concern I have about it, in relation to all the discussions I have heard—and I was not a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but I have read some of the submissions that were made—is that there are concerns abroad that there will be capricious decision-making, or, at least, decision making that is less than even-handed, if we have a system that is less transparent and less predictable than the current points model. I say to the Minister that that is a legitimate concern.

I want to speak on Part 1 of the bill, because I was kind of staggered when I heard the United Future spokesperson, Paul Adams, ask the New Zealand First Party why we are not voting for this bill.

First of all, I think the fact that United Future is voting for the bill shows why we are voting against it. In the election campaign I opened up the newspaper to find Peter Dunne talking about his immigration policy. He said that United Future wanted 60,000-plus immigrants per year. That is obviously why United Future is voting for this bill. We believe that it does absolutely nothing to change the regime, to change the ad hoc policy-making implemented by this Government, and that is the reason we are voting against Part 1. [Interruption] Well, where there is a will there is a way, and there is no will over there. Why would a party that wants 60,000-plus immigrants a year not vote for a policy like this? It is very obvious to us in New Zealand First that this bill is just smoke and mirrors.

Part 1, which deals with the commencement and the objects of this legislation, does nothing whatsoever to increase the fortunes of this nation. When I looked through this part of the bill, it became very apparent to me that this legislation will allow for continuing high levels of immigration. It does nothing to help the average young Kiwi couple who are chasing the most basic of Kiwi dreams, like buying a home. I will be in that situation in a few months when I get married. I was looking at the Sunday-Star Times on Sunday, and I found an article on page 8 entitled “First-home dreams built on sand” that I want quickly to bring to the attention of the Committee. The article says exactly what the problem is in this country. Once the commencement of this bill takes place, it will do nothing for people like Jude Davies and Tim Dunning, who are staying with Dunning’s parents as he and Davies save for a deposit on a Wellington house. The article states: “You can spot them at house auctions: clean-cut young couples, happy in love and ready to set up home together. They stand at the front, nervous but excited, clutching in one hand the letter from their bank pre-approving a loan of up to $350,000, maybe a little more. They are tense, avoiding any little nod or wink that might be wrongly interpreted as a bid. They miss the first bid—a seasoned bidder gets in first—but maybe the young bloke raises his hand for the second bid. You can see them walking away afterwards, disappointed, bewildered. The bidding quickly moved out of their reach. … The world should be their oyster”—at this time in life for them—“yet they cannot afford to fulfil the most basic of Kiwi dreams: buying a home.”

All that this Government is doing with its immigration policy is making it harder and harder for couples like Tim Dunning and Jude Davies to buy a house, to start a life together, and to pursue the most basic of dreams. As I said, that problem is a direct result of the Government’s immigration policy. Instead of having a policy like that, New Zealand First suggests we should have something a little more creative, like export policies that provide tax abatement, like concession policies to ensure that viable exporting opportunities and innovation are not lost. Contrary to the objects of this Act, in clause 3, the bill will not help the young mechanics who were talked about earlier. There are plenty of young guys, whom I have met when I have gone to get my car fixed and so on, who would just love to be able to become a mechanic. There is no skills shortage as far as that is concerned.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 1 of this bill consists of just two clauses, with the first being the commencement clause. There is nothing unusual about the wording in that clause, although it might be useful to amend it, so that instead of the bill coming into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent, it could come into force 3 years after the date on which it receives the royal assent, because that would enable a future Government to amend this before it embarrasses our country.

The main aspect of Part 1 is obviously clause 3, “Objects of Act”. It is fascinating to look at what is spelt out in clause 3. Paragraph (a) states: “establish a legislative framework,”—and there is nothing wrong with that—“particularly in respect of Government residence policy, where New Zealand’s interests are paramount, as opposed to the present entitlement model;”. It will not be immediately clear to people as to what that means. We can maybe get some insight into what that means from associated legislation, such as the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which was passed by this Government not so long ago. In managing our immigration policies in this country, that legislation lapsed the applications of some thousands of applicants for residence. Do members know what the one overwhelming characteristic was of those applicants whose applications were lapsed? They were all people who had largely met the points requirements. They were educated, and they had employment prospects in this country. The one characteristic that was common to most of the people whose applications were lapsed is that they were from India.

That gives us some hint of what this Government is about. It talks about putting New Zealand first. Clause 3 states that New Zealand’s interests are paramount, as distinct from an entitlement model. What we have seen so far from this Government is that its notion of “New Zealand’s interests” seems to discriminate against people such as those from India, because largely it was people from India who had their applications lapsed. It concerns the Opposition that the objectives spelt out in clause 3 provide for a system that can discriminate.

When the Minister spoke a moment ago she said the problem with the entitlement model—as she refers to it—is that it enables people who are not appropriately qualified to come to New Zealand. The answer to that problem is to change the rules. The rules should be transparent. The points system should be changed. More points should be given for the kinds of skills that are needed in New Zealand. We do not need to put in place an opaque—potentially corrupt—system to get the kinds of persons we want as successful immigrants. We should change the points system. We should give more points to people who have job offers or to people who have the kinds of skills that New Zealand needs. But clause 3, which spells out the objects of the Act, establishes a two-tier system that enables the Minister to discriminate. There is no need for it. We can achieve the outcome being sought. I accept that the outcome being sought—to better match immigrant skills with New Zealand’s requirements—is a perfectly fine one, but we do not need the two-tier system, spelt out in clause 3, to achieve that.

We would achieve that outcome much more simply if we made changes to the points system. Points should be awarded in such a way that there is a clear entitlement system, and the entitlement should be based on skills that better match New Zealand’s requirements. There is no need to run the risks. In terms of clause 3(c), how on earth will the Government decide the labour market requirements and the detail necessary to make this system work? The Minister should explain to us how clause 3(c) would work. How will the Government select and actively recruit migrants? That is a huge change from the current system.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is a very important issue for New Zealand First, and I do appreciate being given the call. The point made by the Hon Lockwood Smith is very apt for the amendment New Zealand First has put before the Committee. We have made it clear that, in so far as clause 3(c) is concerned, we should add the words: “Such migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand, such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” To some extent, that is what we all thought the Minister was saying when she introduced the bill in the dead of night, under urgency, many weeks ago—that is, that Labour was changing the legislation so that jobs for immigrants would be matched to jobs available in New Zealand. But, of course, that is not what is happening.

Labour has an obsession with having 45,000 or more people coming into New Zealand every year, and it wants to increase the population of New Zealand, willy-nilly. For example, last year 190,000 people in total, including international students, were approved for permanent and temporary residence in the year ended June 2002. We have quoted that figure before from the geography magazine of Waikato University. It was put to the Minister at the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration on the immigration estimates. She refused to recognise the figure initially, but when we put it to her again she admitted that, yes, that statement from the geography magazine was correct. That is, 190,000 people, including international students, were approved for permanent and temporary residence, with 52,800 in the immigration category, 73,000 by student visas and permits, and the balance in the temporary residence category.

How can New Zealand manage 190,000 people in a year? Mostly they are in Auckland, which is an area that is growing. In the last 10 years Auckland grew by 200,000 people. As a matter of interest, that number was the total population of Auckland in 1929. Every 10 years Auckland is growing by 200,000, which is more than the population of most of the other cities in New Zealand. If Auckland does that every 10 years, it is no wonder we have problems in Auckland.

I am pleased that Mr Adams repeated New Zealand First’s immigration policy. I had already mentioned it in my speech, but he read it out again in the speech notes provided to him by his research unit.

💬 Rodney Hide: The Labour Party research unit!

Perhaps it was the Labour Party research unit. He will read anything—

💬 Rodney Hide: As long as it comes from Labour.

Yes, as long as it comes from Labour. We made it clear in our election policy that we would cut immigration approval to 10,000 immigrants a year.

We also said we would increase penalties for breaches of immigration laws. What will happen to this bloke, Mohebbi, or whoever, who is involved in this legislation we are rushing through the Committee tonight? He will just get sent back to Iran. He has committed bigamy, which is a breach of our law, but what will we do to him? We will just send him back home.

💬 Rodney Hide: That’s Labour Party policy.

Yes, it is Labour Party policy. He has had a good 6 or 7 years in New Zealand, and now we will send him back home.

We said we would have a 3-year probation for immigrants during which lawbreakers would be deported, and there would be pre-arrival health screening, including screening for HIV. We see from the clause about the objects of this bill that nothing like that is covered to ensure proper health screenings for people who come to New Zealand. We have tuberculosis here now, on a big scale. In question time today the Prime Minister seemed to know what the figures were in 1991, but she could not tell us what the figures are today after 4 years of her administration. That was another very convenient lapse of memory.

We have made it clear we believe that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has some very good ideas in this area. I was interested in its quotation from the Population and Sustainable Development 2003 report. The council left out the first few words of this quotation, but I will put them in. It is a very good quotation: “In terms of populations, the impacts of fundamentals such as lifestyle, wages, opportunities, and safety will outlast any artificial incentives that may be provided to attract migrants or influence New Zealanders to stay or return.” What was not read out was: “There is the chance of a downward spiral if New Zealand can’t get the right mix to attract, retain, regain, and utilise skilled people.”

We in New Zealand First believe there will be a downward spiral with this Government’s policy, because it is a slap-happy, haphazard policy that is trying to bring in 45,000-plus people. Last year the figure was 190,000 people. We say that we have to link the job with the immigrant. We cannot just bring in 45,000 people and hope they will have jobs. That is all the Labour Party’s policy is, and it intends to do that every year. Every year, time and time again, Labour will bring in another 45,000 people—mainly into Auckland—on top of everybody else. New Zealand has never been able to sustain that type of immigration. On a per capita basis there would not be any other country in the world that could do that type of thing.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance on how an amendment can be out of order that seeks to ensure transparency and certainty of immigration policies in order to maintain the international credibility of New Zealand’s immigration system. It is rather odd, because if that amendment is out of order, it is being argued that our system should not be transparent, should have no certainty, and should have no international credibility.

Perhaps it would assist with clarity if I tell the Committee that we did try to work with the member who was moving the amendment to have it included as part of clause 3(a), but because the member could not agree to that change, I decided that it was important to follow up on the points. Although I could not agree to the stand-alone paragraph (d), I actually moved it in my name.