Immigration Amendment Bill

Part 2 is the guts of the bill, to use a colloquial expression, and it worries us hugely. I keep stressing to the Minister that I can accept the logic of what the Government is trying to do. As I understand it, it is that we need somehow to better match the skills that immigrants bring to this country with the skills needs of our country. We have no argument with that. I accept that in the past, immigration policy has not achieved that as well as it should have. We all know that there are too many doctors driving taxis. We accept that, but we should be moving to a better policy. There is no question about it. But the problem with what is provided for in Part 2 is twofold, in my view.

The first problem is that the Government is putting in place a two-tiered system that is inevitably going to delay decision making. The two tiers are, firstly, that under clause 9, people who wish to come to New Zealand are invited to express an interest in residence in New Zealand. The Minister is given the unfettered right, under section 13E, inserted by clause 9, to decide which of those people who have expressed an interest in having residence in New Zealand will be allowed to apply for residence. They could sit on that list of expressions of interest for months, while the Minister decides which of those people will be invited to apply for residence.

After they apply for residence, there is then a further decision to be made. The decision then has to be made whether they will be given residence. That is the second tier of the whole process. Submissioners to the select committee were concerned about the length of time this whole process could take. I know that the Minister will get to her feet, if she is interested in the debate, to say that there will be mechanisms to make sure it does not take too long. But we know all too well that it is going to be quite a lengthy process.

People will have made the huge decision to seek to come to New Zealand. It is a huge decision, a very courageous decision, that all our forebears made in previous times, in the history of our country. We believe that it is not wise to have to go through that two-tier process. But there is a worse problem. The very nature of this process gives the Minister and her officials so much power to choose who can even apply for residence. Almost inevitably, all those who came to the select committee to make submissions on the bill expressed a concern that, despite the best intentions, this process will almost inevitably lead to corruption.

We know that under clause 7 the Government will be putting out its residence policy. But the danger remains that when we give absolute discretion, when the Minister chooses not to invite someone to apply for residence, there is no appeal. No one can say: “Hang on, we think it’s not consistent with the Government’s residence policy that our expression of interest should have been turned down by the Minister, because we feel she has not invited us because we are Indian, or Asian, or Chinese. We feel that that’s why we have not been invited to apply.” They have no chance to appeal that decision with anyone. That is why so many people are concerned about the potential for discrimination; the potential for corruption.

I am not accusing this Minister of being racist. I would not dare accuse this Minister of being corrupt. But, despite the best intentions, we have legislation like this. In other jurisdictions, not everyone sets out to be corrupt. Some do, but not all. When we have legislation that can lead to a slippery path, where a Minister can make a decision about two people whom we could invite to apply for residence here, and one is Asian and one is not, there is the risk that the person who is not Asian might be selected.

I want to begin my contribution to this part of the debate on Part 2 by quoting one little section to the Committee: “ (a) No person is entitled to a residence permit as of right; and (b) Any question whether or not—(i) to grant a resident permit to any person … is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or, subject to any special direction given under this Act and to section 13C of this Act, of the appropriate immigration officer.” That is the existing law.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why did you call it “entitlement” in this bill?

Because it has become an entitlement through the operation of exactly the protection that is offered by Government residence policy. Government residence policy is what the Residence Appeal Authority has to ensure is being applied in a case being decided by an individual immigration officer, by way of delegation. That is the way the law is currently structured. What has happened is that it has got out of kilter with the way the law was intended to be structured. We have ended up with a right to residence based on an individual meeting a set of points, based on qualifications, skills, and experience that may not match New Zealand’s needs.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Change the points system.

No, but this is the point that I want to make to the member. I hope we do have this interchange in the course of this debate, because this is the most important part of the bill. What I think people do not realise is that the numbers are currently being controlled, under the New Zealand immigration programme, by the number of points that one has to obtain, or draw together, in order to qualify for residence under the general skills category. In my time as Minister those points have risen from 24 points to 29 points. The reason they have risen so significantly in a relatively short period is that there has been an increased interest in people moving to New Zealand under this particular category.

The points were actually too low at 24 points. I accept that. I held the points at 24, so I accept that I made a mistake in doing so, and that is why we ended up with a backlog. It does mean that we have a significant number of people who have had applications lodged within a system that did not cater for the change in the policy that the Government wanted to introduce. So this means that there will be fewer delays, not more delays; there will be more certainty, and there will be no ministerial unfettered right to decide, because Government residence policy will determine the factors that will be taken into account.

I can assure the member that when people lodge their expressions of interest they will do so on a points-based system. The only difference between the current points system and the new proposed points-based system—and the details are still being worked out, but they will be known in advance of the skilled migrant category coming into effect—is that the new proposed points-based system will have additional points for meeting New Zealand’s needs over and above the pre-existing general skills category. So there will be additional points for people having qualifications and experience in the areas of skill shortage within New Zealand.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: You can do that now.

No, there is a reason we cannot. The second thing is that it will have additional points if people have job offers in those areas. It will have additional points for job offers that are relevant to qualifications and experience. But the job offers that are currently there now that are not relevant to qualifications or experience will go. They will not get any extra points, because they have been incredibly unhelpful in ensuring that people are able to take up their previous areas of occupational skill.

There will also be extra points for people who get job offers outside Auckland. The point that I have been making is that a lot of people who have been making some criticism around us moving away from a transparent and open system really have not looked at the detail of what is being proposed, and that is a points-based system for the expressions of interest. People will register their expression of interest for a very low fee. At the end of, say, a quarterly assessment, those who have been selected will be invited to apply for residence—that is, those who score the most points. The rest will be lapsed at the end of that 3-month period, if that is the period that we determine. So people will not be sitting in a pool for ever. They will know within a period of 3 to 4 months whether they will be invited to apply for residence.

Once they are invited to apply for residence, then it is pretty sure that, unless there is something particularly wrong—for instance, they have attempted to defraud the system with false documentation, or whatever—they will have a reasonably good chance of gaining residence. In fact, the sorts of statistics that we have been working off are around the general skills statistics. I think about 10 percent are declined residence, and some of those are, in fact, allowed to have their applications reconsidered as a result of the Residence Appeal Authority.

But there will be two streams of people who will fall off this residence application. There are those who have job offers in New Zealand, who have already proven that they can settle in New Zealand, who did their university degree here, and who have studied here for a couple of years—they are people who already know themselves what they are coming to, what to expect, and they have already demonstrated that they can settle in this country.

In the other group are people who do not have job offers, who have not got their qualifications here in New Zealand, or who have not worked here for a couple of years. Their situation can be managed through a work-to-residence option, which means that there is a residence permit at the end of it, but it does mean that they carry the risk of failure, of not being able to get a job in their area or expertise or qualification.

So, in fact, this system is much more geared towards those whom New Zealand needs to meet its skill shortages. It is aimed precisely ensuring that migrants who come to New Zealand under the skilled migrant category—and this is only the skilled migrant category that it applies to at the moment; maybe in the future we will look at expanding it to other areas, but not at this stage—can be selected to meet New Zealand’s need.

So the system itself will be much quicker. There will be no delays such as we have at the moment, and there will be no chance of people waiting 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years, which has been the case, not just under this Government, but under previous Governments as well. I think people should read the histories of their own party’s performance in this area of immigration before being so quick to criticise others.

There is no doubt about New Zealand First’s history, with regard to immigration. When New Zealand First came into office, the immigration figures were coming down and down.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You did nothing.

I checked the figures myself, and they were coming down and down. There is no doubt about it. I was in practice in Auckland then, and one could see around Auckland that young people were able to buy their homes because there was not the pressure on the housing market. Parents could get young people into a school because there was not the pressure on education, and people could get into a hospital—[Interruption] I say, for the benefit of the member for Whanganui, that women in Auckland cannot even have a baby, without walking into the maternity ward and being told to be out in 2 hours, which is what happened to a pregnant woman in Auckland within only the last few days. She went into North Shore Hospital and was told that she could be there for only 2 hours, to have her baby, and then leave.

Under New Zealand First there was a good health system, a good education system, and one could buy a house—something that a young person cannot do today. Only the speculators are profiting by this Labour Party policy—once again, as usual. The Labour Party has always done this when it has come into office. I remember that it was the same in 1972 to 1975, and it is the same now. Property prices are soaring under this Labour Party.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Rubbish!

It is not rubbish. It is happening in Ponsonby all the time. A dreadful little place that 2 years ago was worth $310,000 is now worth $600,000. Is that not speculation? Judith Tizard would not have the faintest idea about what is happening in Auckland, and she is supposed to be the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues.

New Zealand First is opposed to this Labour Party policy, which has made no change whatsoever to immigration numbers. The Minister of Immigration is like a magician. She tries to fiddle her particulars but in actual fact there is no change. We are wasting our time putting this legislation through. It will not improve anything, in so far as a young person trying to buy a house, or to get to a school, is concerned. The Minister laughs. OK, it might be all right in Christchurch, but it is not like that in Auckland. Labour members can laugh, but it is not like that in Auckland. This is what members who live in Auckland and serve the Auckland electoral system and the constituents in the Auckland area have to put up with. To put an end to the Minister’s story about how long applications will take, Access Immigration New Zealand has indicated that applications will have at least a 12-month delay.

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

Before the dinner break, one of the interjections I received from the Minister of Immigration was a criticism of the figures when New Zealand First was involved in the Government. So I got out those figures, because she gave the clear impression that immigration figures had increased during that time. I go back to 1993—and these figures were compiled by David Williams of the Parliamentary Library. They show that in 1993 permanent and long-term arrivals were 49,562. The net figure came to 6,848. In 1996—I am covering election years—there were 80,288 permanent and long-term arrivals, and the net figure was 29,832. So the National Government had increased those figures, from 49,000 to 80,000, during its 3 years in office. From 1996 to 1999, which included 2 of the 3 years of New Zealand First, the figures went from 80,288 down to 56,580, and we had net permanent and long-term arrivals of minus 10,199. So when we say we will get immigration down, we do mean it. We will take action to do it. Of course, again, by the year 2002 the figure had gone up to 88,365, under the Labour administration.

One of the interesting things about the Waikato University paper was that it showed there seemed to be a 3-year cyclical way of looking at immigration. Certain parties want immigration figures to be high just before an election and other parties want them to be low, because of their particular policies. New Zealand First is unabashed about the fact that we want New Zealand to be primarily for New Zealanders. We want a certain number of skilled people from overseas, and we do not want the flood that comes in under the National Party, or the tremendous flood that comes in under the Labour Party.

💬 Jill Pettis: What flood did that member come in on?

I came in, possibly, on Noah’s flood according to some of the members of this House—I have been here as long as that.

As far as the policies are concerned, the Minister is absolutely wrong, yet again, in trying to suggest that New Zealand First’s figures do not somehow meet its policies when it is in Government. We believe in New Zealand for New Zealanders.

I rise to speak to Part 2, which is the guts of the bill, I guess. I make a couple of comments to Mr Dail Jones of the New Zealand First party. What he is really saying to the Committee—and I guess there is some truth to this—is that if we had New Zealand First as the Government, this country would not be very attractive for people to come to. If we look further at this issue, we see that under New Zealand First some of our best and brightest fled this country, and I have no doubt that if Mr Peters was in charge, they would be tempted to flee again.

💬 Jill Pettis: I don’t often agree with the member but he’s absolutely right.

Thank you. It does not happen often that the member agrees with me. The problem I have with this part is that, on the one hand the Minister says we are going to have a points system, and, on the other hand, she says we are not. When we look at the points system we see some of the dilemmas the Government has. It has a large number of migrants coming into New Zealand, so it has raised the points required. The result is, people get more and more points—for example, for having higher and higher academic qualifications—and we discover that only nuclear scientists can qualify. The trouble is we are not very strong on nuclear physics in this country. I am exaggerating only slightly. We then discover, as we go around the country and talk—as ACT, of course, does—to business people, that there are critical shortages in that sector. I say to the Minster that, interestingly enough—given she says the Government is going to move in that respect—we have a critical shortage of truck drivers.

💬 Jill Pettis: We need 4,000 truck drivers.

The member is agreeing with me again. That is a bit of a worry! She has just said we need 4,000 truck drivers. When I look at this bill, I start to wonder about the arguments the Minster is putting forward. Does that mean we will have 4,000 truck drivers arriving? If a person is a nuclear scientist, should that person put down “truck driver” as his or her desired occupation? Should the person come forward with a job offer from, say, “Bay of Plenty Trucking”—if there is such a company—and say, under the Minister’s theory: “Here I am. I’ve got high points. I’ve got a job offer, which I got while I was overseas, to be a truck driver.”? That is part of the problem.

The second part of the problem—and I think this point illustrates it—is that Parliament moved away from this sort of system for the reason that consultants, whom the Minister so dislikes, will reshape their policies to fit whatever the Minister does. So if she suddenly says that people need a job offer, the consultants will produce job offers. If she says that people will have to live in Invercargill, they will suddenly claim they are going to live in Invercargill. What are we going to do then? Are we going to deport them if they decide that Invercargill winters are too cold? Those sorts of policies completely discredited the previous immigration system. I realise there are now very few members left in the House who were actually here when we had that previous, discredited method. But that point illustrates the nature of human beings.

When the witnesses appeared before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and my party was not a member, so I am relying just on the report back—it appears that those who know about these things said to the Government: “If you’re worried about the integrity of the present system”—and New Zealand First clearly is—“it’s nothing compared with the concerns you’re going to have when you have wide discretions available in an area like immigration.” I think that all members of the House accept there are possibilities and ways in which our present immigration system can be improved, and I guess that if we are frank about it, we will say that immigration, by its nature, is always going to be arbitrary. When MPs meet people coming into this country, we see they are hard-working and diligent. Some migrants want to come, and clearly they would make good citizens, but we may find they are one point short. The next person who comes in to see us might be asking for permission to double dip the social welfare system—but that person is a New Zealand citizen. The idea that all New Zealand citizens are wonderful, and that everybody wanting to immigrate to this country is a plague, is nonsense. One sees those instances in one’s own electorate clinics.

What I do not see in this bill, though, is a system that looks as though it will be robust enough so that we know it will be a fair system and that people who apply to New Zealand will have fair rules applied to them. What I do see though is a panic reaction to the sorts of speeches that New Zealand First members make on this subject. What I think we are seeing is a method whereby the Minister of Immigration can do exactly what Mr Dail Jones seems to be advocating—that is, every time there is an election year, depending on which way the polls are going, one decreases or increases the immigration numbers, only to ignore them completely afterwards. Surely we should be seeking, as a Parliament, to find out what rules we want and what guidelines we want.

I, along with Mr Prebble, am one of those few members who are able to remember how immigration used to operate when we had a system of the sort that is proposed by this bill, and specifically Part 2. I think it is worth the Committee just reminding itself of how we got here. We have this bill because the Minister had far too many applications in the system, and the system could not cope any longer. The reason we have too many applications in the system is that the Minister did not take any notice of all the warning signs. Under the points system—which, as Mr Prebble has reminded us, is a lot more transparent than the old system—there is a computer formula that says to the Minister that when a certain number of applications, with certain criteria, come in, then that is the time to increase the number of points. So for many months that system was automatically saying to the Minister: “The current points number is 24, and you need to lift it to 25.” That is what the system was saying, and the Minister overrode that system.

So the applications kept pouring in. Well, that was a big surprise! So all of a sudden the Minister says: “It’s too hard. There are too many applications in the system. We’re going to have to shoot half of them and we’ll have to change the rules.” The new rules would be that the Minister and the officials get to make some choices from time to time about whom we invite to come in. So the Minister and the officials, who were too stupid to make changes when the computer system told them to change from 24 points to 25, are supposed to be so clever that they can be entrusted with making arbitrary judgments and arbitrary changes of policy, day by day, as empowered by Part 2 of this bill. That is clearly nuts.

The Minister and the officials, who could not notice when the computer system said that 24 should be crossed out and changed to 25, are so clever that they can be entrusted with reading the indications in the marketplace and making those changes.

As Mr Prebble said, there are some very clear signs in the marketplace as to what is going on out there. Does the Minister know there is an acute shortage of workers on dairy farms in Southland? I know that the local member of Parliament has had representations from Federated Farmers and local farmers who say they cannot get applications approved by the Immigration Service. The Minister does not seem to know that. She is pretending not to listen at the moment. Clearly, neither the Minister nor her officials know that. Yet the new system will rely on that Minister and her officials being up to the mark with what is going on in the marketplace. The new system will depend upon her knowing that in Southland there is an acute shortage of workers on dairy farms, and, as Mr Prebble told us, there is an acute shortage of truck drivers in some sectors in some parts of New Zealand.

The people who could not notice the computer system saying to change 24 points to 25, are supposed to be able to make the most subtle and sophisticated readings of the marketplace and drive day-by-day changes to the policy, accordingly. That is just not credible. Nobody in the Committee tonight appears to believe that. Nobody in the Committee believes that the Minister and her officials are capable of such subtlety and sophistication.

My other point is that new clause 15A, inserted by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, amends section 60 of the Act, and that new clause is a consequence of Justice Chambers decision a month ago. I ask the Minister again, when did she know that that provision would be required, and why did she not pick up the phone and call me, and Mr Prebble and Mr Peters, and say: “I’ve got a problem. I want to fix it.” I have reason to believe that many weeks ago she knew she had this problem. I have looked at that judgment. The Minister of Immigration—as defendant—was represented by Mr Mark Woolford, senior counsel, and I bet dollars to doughnuts that Mr Woolford said to the Minister: “We’re gone. We won’t win this case.”

I guarantee to the Committee tonight that this Minister knew she would need the law changed. That is why we have new clause 15A. Yet I was told about it today, and Mr Prebble and Mr Peters were told today, but United Future was probably told several weeks ago, and that is why United Future is being so secretive and so quiet in these proceedings. United Future will agree to anything to help this Government out of a hole, as we have seen on a number of issues in recent times. But I tell the Minister that this is an important area of policy, and if she knows that something is going wrong, she owes it to us to tell us about it.

I shall speak briefly about the remaining aspects of the elements of Part 2 that I have not already addressed, and then I shall speak briefly about the sequence of events in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper.

Interestingly, I think that both Mr McCully and Mr Prebble have become confused between work-permit policy and residence policy. That is not an unusual thing to happen, when one notes the situation in 1998. Because of the figures Mr Jones read out, which showed a falling rate of immigration in 1998, the Government of the day decided to change the policy so that the offer of employment attracted premium points—five points—regardless of whether the job offer was relevant to the individual’s qualifications or experience. In fact, the whole system melted down once again, with highly professional people gaining residence and having a job offer as a forecourt attendant at a garage. A constituent came to my electorate office a few weeks ago to tell me that he had had his petrol poured by a neurosurgeon, and he was appalled that that situation was still arising in our country.

Unfortunately, there is a mismatch with work-permit policy. Work-permit policy is a matter on my agenda, but it is not relevant to the debate on the skilled migrant category. The skilled migrant category is for people to obtain residence in New Zealand. The general skills category as it is now, the interim category, or the skilled migrant category of the future, is not to meet New Zealand’s labour market shortages, such as truck-drivers. It is to meet our skill shortages, such as people in the information technology areas who will help to grow New Zealand’s economy. This is really about building New Zealand’s skills set, out of our skilled immigration policy. It is not designed to replace work-permit policy. It is simply to utilise the category, as it was properly to be used in the first place.

The trouble is that both Mr McCully and Mr Prebble said opposite things about the points system, but have highlighted the deficiency I am trying to get rid of. The deficiency in the current system is that the points rise or fall, based on the numbers and not on the quality of the application. Under the new points system for the expression of interest, there will be a threshold of points that anyone who wants to lodge an expression of interest has to meet. But that person will not be able to lodge an expression of interest if he or she does not meet a set number of points, and they will not be fluctuating over a period of time. In my time as Minister they have gone from 24 points to 29 points. Have New Zealand’s needs changed in that period, so that we need only the people that Mr Prebble described as meeting the requirements of 29 points? No, they have not, and that is the problem with the current system. It is why we want a set threshold that people have to meet, in order to lodge an expression of interest. It will not adjust, based on applications. We will meet the New Zealand immigration programme, which has been established at 45,000 for this year, and 45,000 for the next 3 years is the indicative level. New Zealand’s First’s objection is that this Government is supportive of an active immigration programme. We will continue to support an active immigration project. So the points are not to be adjusted.

Mr McCully raised the question of when I was provided with advice on this particular case. I introduced the Supplementary Order Paper at the earliest possible opportunity. On 6 August I was advised by the Department of Labour that a matter was to occur in the High Court the following day. It was an application under the Habeas Corpus Act. The department warned me that following the outcome of the proceedings, consideration might have to be given to an urgent amendment to the Immigration Act. Yes, I was provided with a warning, the day before the matter went to court.

The following day I received another piece of advice from the legal section of the Department of Labour advising of the risks and stating that I would have to consider the matter, and that the written version of the oral judgment that had been given that day would be available the following week. On the following Monday we had the written judgment from the court, and the matter proceeded from there. We worked out a programme to bring together an amendment to the Immigration Act that could be put into place with the Immigration Amendment Bill that was currently before the House. A week’s adjournment fell within that 3-week period. The following week, which was last week, I sought power from Cabinet to act. I took it through two Cabinet committees last week, which would normally take 2 weeks. Yesterday I took it to Cabinet. It was approved by Cabinet yesterday, and signed off by my caucus today.

The member says that this Government has not responded quickly enough, but it would not have been possible to move an amendment any more quickly than this. I am very grateful that the National Party, New Zealand First, United Future, and now the ACT party, have said that they will support the Supplementary Order Paper. We cannot forget the fact that the individual who is the subject of this case is not in custody at the moment, and there is no provision to detain him until this particular amendment is passed. That is one of the reasons this is urgent. However, it does apply beyond that particular individual. It applies to another individual whom I spoke of in the motion before the House, prior to the Committee stage, to consider the Supplementary Order Paper. I made it very clear that another individual was charged with a very serious offence yesterday, in relation to the shooting of a woman in Manurewa. That individual was also released because the District Court could not continue to extend his warrant of commitment, because of the Mohebbi case.

That means that we are exposed while the law remains as it is.

A number of people have commented on the language of the law and the use of the language of discretion. I make the point, and the select committee made this point in its report back, that we are going to be undertaking a full review of immigration law next year. We will look at the language of the legislation in its totality, but it is important that we get this amendment into law at the moment so we can be protected against people who will take no action to support the removal of such people from this country—or in this case sign applications for identity documents to enable them to be removed from New Zealand.

New Zealand remains under threat, I believe, by people who could be released under the current section 60, and I thank members of the Committee for providing me with the support I need to get this amendment through.

I note that the Minister has talked about being advised of a gentleman who is serving petrol and is a neurosurgeon. Given that we have a shortage of neurosurgeons, particularly paediatric neurosurgeons, it is to be hoped that she has followed up on that contact and the information given to her. Hopefully, she has organised it so that we can add to our complement of neurosurgeons in this country and not continue to experience a shortage. That is particularly so given that the Minister is now saying that the Government wants to address the shortages in these areas.

I do not have particular experience of immigration or immigration law, so what do I do? I go to the kind of submissions made by the New Zealand Law Society, and the requirements for legislative guidelines. In addressing Part 2 and the way the legislation is drafted, I would like to bring members’ attention to the legislative guidelines. On page 18 the submission refers to the way legislation should be drafted in relation to immigration. It refers to the fact that, in general, the more serious the consequence of the decision for individual rights, the greater the protection necessary for the person affected. That is in terms of the independence or seniority of the decision-maker, the procedure to be followed, the specific standards and criteria of the decision, and the rights of appeal and review. When there are serious consequences for individuals, it is very important that their human rights are addressed. I would have liked to see something in the commentary on how human rights are affected by the way this legislation is drafted, and the need to protect people’s individual rights. It is an important component of this bill that I think has been overlooked.

That issue has been mentioned by the submitters. The Law Society submission states that under the proposed legislation it is impossible to predict an immigration outcome, or to advise people that they might qualify for residence, and that their applications might lapse at any time. New section 13BB in clause 8 covers the lapsing of applications for visas and permits. I have a gentleman in my constituency who does not know where his current application stands. If at any time two people in pretty similar circumstances are invited—because, of course, one has to be invited—to make an application, and if they have two different officers, one person might be granted his or her application and the other one denied. Where is the fairness and equity in that? If one of them gets approved and the other just gets left, the application lapses.

The constituent I am currently dealing with has spent $2,000-plus on his application. He now has no idea where it is at, and he may have to pay that money again.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: When did he apply?

That is not relevant here, and I do not intend to digress on the actual details of this particular case. They have been sent to the Minister’s office, so perhaps he might get a speedy resolution. One can live in hope, I suppose, but I shall be following that matter up with her office in due course. If his application lapses, a lot of time, effort, and emotional trauma will have gone into dealing with the bureaucracy. Suddenly, for no justifiable reason, that application will have lapsed, and absolutely no reason will be given. Where is the right or the ability to appeal?

I think section 13B really is a travesty. It allows applications to be made and then lapsed with no justification, and no right of appeal or redress. That is an appalling situation to put people in, and it creates an incredible degree of uncertainty. Unfettered decision-making is a departure from the rule of law.

It is obvious that the Government has to rely on a huge number of immigrants to keep the country afloat economically. It is a bubble that will burst. It is incredible that the Government is using this massive flow of immigration to prop up the economy. I am proud to be in a party that in Government will make sure that it props up the economy with true and proper economic growth. It will not just use immigration as an excuse because of a failure to keep the economy going in a proper way, and a failure to train, skill, and employ our own New Zealanders.

In speaking on Part 2, I first want to touch on an amendment put up by my colleague Dail Jones. It states: “To add after the word ‘policy’ on page 4 line 9 the following: Provided that the policy will ensure that no more than a total of 10,000 residence visas or residence permits in total are issued per annum.”

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Ha, ha!

Lianne Dalziel is obviously going to give us her support for that.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No way!

I thought you were, Lianne, I am so disappointed.

💬 Dail Jones: The honourable Minister.

I thank Dail Jones for pulling me up there. I support Dail Jones’ amendment because I believe that the number of new residence permits should be a lot less than it is now. As I said, it should be more in the vicinity of 10,000—not 45,000, plus or minus 5,000. It is probably plus, as the honourable Minister is nodding. In New Zealand First we believe—and I believe personally—that New Zealand simply cannot keep absorbing those high numbers without them having a serious impact on our health infrastructure, our roading infrastructure, our schools and universities, and our taxi industry.

💬 Marc Alexander: Where’s your evidence?

Marc Alexander from United Future asks where my evidence is. I sat in traffic for 2 hours in Auckland the other day.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You can’t blame immigration for that.

I sat in traffic for 2 hours. I think that is pretty much enough evidence that we are bringing in far more people than our roading infrastructure can handle. That is a basic fact. It was not even rush hour; it was about 3.30 p.m. [Interruption] I can tell Mr Alexander that I was on the motorway. He comes from a party that wants 60,000-plus immigrants in this country. That is what United Future said in its election manifesto. They are nodding their heads. If they are voting for this bill, there is obviously a reason. It must mean that they want more immigrants, but that is what New Zealand First is absolutely opposed to.

This bill will not take the weight off those 280 interpreters in the Auckland hospital system; it will not reduce the backlog of traffic on our roads. All it will do is add to that problem. It will continue to put pressure on our schools and universities. We have to do a lot to reverse the taxi driver problem. In my job as a member of Parliament, I have had the chance to drive around in a few cabs. Just the other week I had a driver from overseas who was a doctor. He is driving cabs, so there are serious problems in that respect. New Zealand First believes that this bill will do absolutely nothing to reverse the problems we face as a country.

I turn now to new section 10A inserted by clause 6, and the provision in subsection (2): “The question whether or not to issue such an invitation, or to revoke such an invitation once issued, is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or, subject to any special direction given under this Act—

I thought it would be useful for New Zealand First to understand that Labour’s immigration target—the quota—is about 45,000, and 60 percent of it is meant to come from skilled migrants and business migrants, so that reduces the figure to about 27,000. I think the Government is looking to get about 20,000 from the skilled migrants category. I predict that this bill will greatly reduce the number of skilled migrants who will be approved, so I am surprised that New Zealand First is not supporting it. It would go quite a long way to addressing its wish to reduce the total number of migrants down to 10,000. This bill deals only with skilled migrants, and New Zealand First now wants that target reduced to10,000.

I want to acknowledge that one of my proposed amendments, to “ensure the transparency and certainty of immigration policies to maintain the international credibility of the New Zealand immigration system,” was adopted by the Minister as part of clause 3(a) in Part 1, although I regret it could not be accepted as a stand-alone amendment. In adopting that amendment, I would like the Minister to now reflect on the invitation-to-apply provision in terms of transparency and certainty. Submitters to the select committee widely commented that that tool particularly failed to pass the test of transparency and certainty. The legislation makes it quite clear that the discretion to issue a letter of invitation lies entirely with the Minister. If the letter is not issued, then technically there is no right of appeal for potential applicants who have submitted an expression of interest. I doubt very much that people who are serious about wanting to receive a letter of invitation would dare to submit an expression of interest that did not incur a lot of cost. In order to secure that letter of invitation, they would therefore have gone through the process as if they were submitting a full application, with full documentation and incurring consultancy costs, or whatever.

The other thing I want to challenge the Minister on is the current points system. I believe there are sufficient tools in that system for the Minister, or the Immigration Service, to achieve the aim of accepting applicants who would be of benefit to New Zealand. First of all, this points system is a two-step process by which the Cabinet can start to assign points to whatever the Government and officials deem to be appropriate on the day. For example, they could allocate points in respect of age, qualification, or vary the type of qualification that we believe New Zealand requires, or the background information, or even the relevant skills.

But under this new changed system that the Minister has just explained to us, every 3 months the Government will look at the pool of people who have submitted expressions of interest and take those with the highest points. But the argument can be made that in that particular 3 months we might have people who just cross the threshold, but officials will still have to issue letters of invitation to the highest point-scorers, whereas in the second 3 months we might have applicants who all exceed the threshold by a lot. I think that system is actually limiting our ability to get the best candidates we can.

With the current points system, the Immigration Service, in consultation with the Minister, has to express —

The National Party’s views on Part 2 have been reasonably widely canvassed, but I do not believe that the Government has heard enough constructive argument from speakers, apart from those of National, about issues to do with corruption. That subject is highlighted in clause 6, which deals with the issue of the invitation to apply for residence. That is a matter of discretion—but for whom? That matter can be decided by the Minister, by a visa officer by the anointing of the Minister, or by an immigration officer by the anointing of the Minister. That discretionary power is of concern to us. National believes there is a need to get a better match of the skills of skilled residence applicants to suit the skill requirements of the New Zealand economy. There is no doubt about that, but we think it can be done in a more transparent manner.

I am not arguing that this particular Minister is open to corruption. She seems to me like a reasonable Minister from time to time, but she is setting herself up, and setting up all her colleagues—those future Ministers who will follow in her footsteps over the next few months if her resignation comes about—for suspicion in terms of corruption. A number of submitters pointed out that matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it is a shame the Minister was not more in tune with those concerns. Submitters had concerns about the way in which that discretion would be applied in the issuing of invitations to apply for residency under clause 6. [Interruption] I am not casting those sorts of aspersions on the Minister. I am not suggesting that she would succumb to a packet of money—not at all. My concern for the Minister is that she not only do the right thing but is seen to do the right thing, and, further, that the law provides she could only ever do the right thing.

Section 10A(2), inserted by clause 6, states: “The question whether or not to issue such an invitation, or to revoke such an invitation once issued, is a matter for the discretion of the Minister or, subject to any special direction given under this Act, the appropriate visa officer or immigration officer.” Upon that discretionary decision, no appeal against the decision of the Minister, the visa officer, or the immigration officer is allowed, even if the decision is questionable. Even if all of them took questionable action, there is no appeal. Further, subsection (4) states: “No review proceedings may be brought in respect of any refusal or failure of the Minister or a visa officer or an immigration officer …”. Even if the Minister or the Minister’s officers are suspected of underhand behaviour or of being open to corruption in a particular decision, their decisions will not face an appeal and none of them will face review proceedings.

I ask this Minister whether she really thinks that she herself, those who follow her, and those who work under her so diligently are so beyond reproach that they should not face appeal or review proceedings. That is of concern to me, and I would like the Minister to respond to that. She should not harp back to the fact that those points are already in the Act, but she should address my concern and say, regardless of whether to a greater or lesser degree the points are already in law, how she will address the issue of suspicion of corruption. That is my concern. I put it before the Committee, and, particularly, before the Chair as she considers the bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill. First, since no one else has, I thought someone should speak to the amendment moved by New Zealand First. I want to say a couple of things to the Committee. The first is that New Zealand First ought to explain its 100 percent change in policy. During the election campaign, I was on a platform with Winston Peters, and the number of permanent residents to come into New Zealand was 5,000. A year later, it has doubled. What has happened in the last 12 months? The Government has just arbitrarily picked out that figure. Then we were told by the youngest—I do not want to make a reference to his age—what is his name?

💬 Dail Jones: Craig McNair.

—that the reason for that is that Craig McNair spent 2 hours in a traffic jam. I say to members who are not Aucklanders that I have no doubt that that is so, but I say to Mr McNair that the idea that we would be living in a better country if we did not have any growth and development is ridiculous. The ACT party is in favour of an active immigration policy. We have no doubt that it makes a positive economic contribution to the country, as well as a positive cultural contribution, and if we had a figure of only 10,000 migrants to New Zealand we would have a net loss of population. I have been in towns where there is a net loss. Mr McNair should visit a former mining town to see whether he would like to go and live there. There is nothing more depressing.

The next thing he should realise is that, although it is true that immigrants produce a bit of pressure on our hospitals and other systems, it is nothing compared with the positive contribution they make. Our universities would be in dire straits if they did not have overseas students, and I am surprised that New Zealand First does not know that. I also find that New Zealand First’s contribution to this debate, for a party that states that it concentrates on immigration, is very disappointing. One would think that New Zealand First members would also be turning to the mechanisms that are to be applied. They have not got up and explained to us how they would do it and how they would select those 10,000 people. The Minister indicated that truck drivers would not qualify for permanent residence because permits are going to skilled people only. That is interesting. I ask the Minister where skills start, and what her definition of “not skilled” is. If the truck driver is an owner-driver of a truck that is worth maybe half a million dollars, is that a skilled occupation? How does she work out those sorts of arbitrary lines? That is the problem that I find with the bill.

It appears to me that what the Minister is moving towards—which would appeal to a Minister of Immigration—is a situation in which the Minister can make totally arbitrary decisions that are actually unfair, not based on the real evidence, unjust, and with no appeal at all. There is a name for Governments like that. They are called police States. I note that New Zealand First, in its notes, referred to a person who gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee who had been a lawyer in South Africa, and who said that the bill reminded him of aspects of South African law. That worries me. Coming from a Government with a rule of law, we think ministerial discretion ought always to be able to be reviewed. Although this Minister may not be unfair and discriminatory, this bill is not just for this Minister and this Government but—heaven help us—maybe for a New Zealand First Government, and we ought to be in a position—

💬 Dail Jones: Hear, hear!

The member who is interjecting is an immigrant to this country. I do not hold that against him. He is making a very good contribution, but I find it strange when I hear Cockney voices—that member’s deputy leader—warning us against immigration. I say to the Committee that I would like to hear the Minister explain why she believes that not only herself but also future Ministers of Immigration, including, possibly, a New Zealand First Minister of Immigration, should not be subject to appeal. If that Minister is making unfair, arbitrary decisions that are in contradiction to the facts and that are based on prejudice—even racial prejudice—should there not be the ability to have an appeal?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the call.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: You’ve got to answer that, haven’t you?

I must answer that speech made by the Hon Richard Prebble—I was about to say the “member for Auckland Central”. He made a totally uncalled-for remark about New Zealand First’s election policy regarding immigration numbers. I will read out to him our immigration policy from the “What the parties say about” leaflets. It states that we would cut immigration approval to 10,000 per year; there would be increased penalties for breaches of immigration laws; there would be a 3-year probation for immigration, during which lawbreakers would be deported; there would be pre-arrival health screening, including for HIV. Clearly, our policy was 10,000, and that is why I have put forward an amendment to the Immigration Amendment Bill in order to make sure that the numbers coming in are limited to 10,000. I know it is a fairly crude amendment, but it is one way of making the point as to just what our policy is.

I also appreciate Mr Prebble’s reference to the New Zealand First minority report, in so far as this legislation is concerned. That is particularly relevant to Part 2. We had evidence from the Auckland District Law Society stating that, as a result of this bill, the immigration system could not be trusted, the system proposed by this legislation could be used in a discriminatory or racist manner, the system could be open to corruption, and immigration officers could use the powers contained in the legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits or make special conditions, etc. unclearly, inaccurately, or with ambiguity. No respectable party in the House could possibly support legislation that is as wide and as far-reaching as this legislation. Obviously, the minority Labour Government and the Progressives, as well as United Future, can support legislation that is open to corruption, that could be discriminatory or racist, and, as Justin Glyn, a solicitor from Auckland, said, reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa. That is the sort of result that we could have from this legislation.

We read in the August 2003 issue of Auckland Today that immigration consultants are saying that this Government can use those powers discriminatorily. If a New Zealand First Government had brought in this legislation, I can imagine all the hours we would be staying up day and night with the Labour Party trying to oppose it. But, no, a Labour Government has brought it in—quite extraordinary. If Government members had been on the hustings at the last election saying they would bring in this legislation, there would have been all sorts of problems. I remember the last shots of the Prime Minister on election night with people of Indian origin standing around her, suggesting that that was the New Zealand of the future. She gave that sort of impression during her election campaign. Now we have legislation, which, as Pansy Wong has indicated already, in so far as lapsing 20,000 applications is concerned, involving 45,000 people, seems mostly to affect people of Indian origin. We have seen already that this latest system cannot be trusted and that it can be used in a discriminatory way.

Of course New Zealand First cannot support this type of blatantly—and even covertly—discriminatory legislation. Our policies are clear, and it was interesting to see how close they are—if not similar or identical—to the Council of Trade Unions’ views on the type of people who should come into New Zealand. Mr Prebble has said we should go to a town that has no people in it. We have those towns today, and we have 190,000 people coming into New Zealand. The problem is that they all come into Auckland. What is the point of saying we will have all these people coming in, when they do not go to those small towns that are now closed—they go only to Auckland. How many come to Wellington? Nobody. I walk down Lambton Quay and it is the same as it used to be in 1984. There has been virtually no change whatsoever, except that everything is looking much more attractive. The businesses are doing well, tax money is coming in because of all the tourism-based economy that we have, but there are no Asians in Wellington.

💬 David Benson-Pope: It’s because of the Labour Government. Everything’s going well under the Labour Government.

Mr David Benson-Pope can make as much noise as he likes—I am sure they are not in Dunedin, either. All his constituents know he is sitting in the House, now that I have brought him into the debate.

This legislation does nothing for the small towns of New Zealand. They are still struggling along. Tourism is helping them considerably, but tourism is quite different from immigration. In so far as universities are concerned, Auckland University—

I move, That the question be now put.