Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

At its core, this bill is about ensuring that we can respond flexibly and efficiently to the effects of COVID-19 on our immigration system and on migrants themselves. These are uncertain and stressful times for the migrant community, and I hope that these powers will ensure that the decisions can be made efficiently and quickly.

The bill will do this by introducing eight time-limited powers. In order through the bill they are: the power to extend, vary, or cancel conditions for classes of resident-class visa holders; the power to impose, vary, or cancel conditions for classes of temporary entry-class visa holders; the power to waive any prescribed regulatory requirements for applying for a visa with respect to classes of people; the power to grant visas to individuals and classes of people in the absence of an application; the power to extend the expiry dates of temporary-class visas for classes of people; the power to waive in an individual case the requirement to obtain a transit visa; the power to revoke the entry permission of a person who has been deemed by regulations to have been granted entry permission; and the power to suspend the ability for any class of persons to make applications for visas or submit expressions of interest in applying for visas.

At the committee of the whole House stage, the committee made amendments to the bill to increase the safeguards around the exercise of these powers, tighten the connection to COVID-19 required to exercise some of the powers, and limit the power to suspend applications.

The first change placed an additional safeguard around the exercise of special directions so that they may only be used if the special direction does not materially disadvantage the class or classes of person to which it relates. The bill will preserve the ability for the Government to require visa holders to comply with health measures taken to contain COVID-19 in New Zealand—for example, requiring that they obey the instructions of a medical officer of health. This measure is something the Government introduced for new temporary visa applicants in March, sparked by concerns about tourists who indicated that they would not self-isolate and risked the health of New Zealanders as a result.

The second change to the bill ensures that any power used under the bill is in response to COVID-19. The original wording of the bill was that a power could be used if it was necessary or desirable to respond to COVID-19 or its effects. The committee heard from submitters that the wording “desirable” was too broad and could allow for powers to be used in situations where the connection to COVID-19 was tangential or tenuous. Therefore, the committee of the whole House has tightened up this wording so that the powers may only be used where reasonably necessary to respond to COVID-19 or its effects.

The third change made to the bill is in relation to the power to suspend the ability to apply for a visa or to submit an expression of interest for a visa. The bill’s been amended to make it clear that regulations made under the exercise of this power can only suspend offshore visa applications and expressions of interest. The amendment ensures that the policy intent is explicit. This power is simply intended to suspend applications for visas which could not be used because of border restrictions. It is not intended to prevent onshore applications or expressions of interest being made for visas.

As the Minister would have explained in the second reading debate had there been one, these safeguards form the three threshold hurdles that must be met before a Minister can exercise these powers. Firstly, the exercise of the power must be reasonably necessary. Secondly, the exercise of the power must be related to responding to the effects or the consequences of COVID-19 or measures taken to combat COVID-19, and the Minister may not make a special direction unless they can be satisfied that in doing so they do not materially disadvantage a class of persons who are affected by that power.

It is the position of the Government that the amendments to this bill ensure that there are strong safeguards around the exercise of these powers and that the bill is workable and is fit for purpose. These are broad powers and the Minister will not take the exercise of them lightly. I hope this bill and its powers will relieve some of the pressures on the immigration system and bring certainty to those in the migrant community.

Lastly, I would once again like to thank all members of the House, members of the Opposition, and the Epidemic Response Committee for their work to ensure that this bill has progressed quickly, and, once again, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

💬 Stuart Smith: Mr Speaker.

Stuart Smith. Just before the member starts—I haven’t been in the House during the committee stage, but I wonder whether it would be appropriate to seek leave—

💬 Hon Member: It’s already been done.

Been done? All right. Thank you. Just out of touch again.

That’s all right, Mr Speaker—I know the position well. It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill, and I’d like to begin, as we didn’t have a second reading, for a moment and refer to the select committee process. We do really have to acknowledge the submitters, who took the time, under quite tight time constraints, to get their submissions in. They were fulsome submissions, and those that appeared before the Epidemic Response Committee did so with aplomb and they raised some very serious concerns that they had with the bill. Due to those concerns, I believe the bill is in a much better position than it was when it went in to select committee. So it was all of the concerns that were outlined by my colleague Mr Woodhouse. I won’t go over them again, but they were something that we spent quite a bit of time really grilling the officials over to make sure that we weren’t making a serious error in the bill, and I’m comfortable we got to a very good position.

There were some things that were raised by the business sector, particularly Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Winegrowers, that, while they really did capture our imaginations as to the issues that are being faced by those industries, weren’t included, and we didn’t change anything in the bill because it was outside the scope of the bill. But it was acknowledged by the officials, and I’m sure that the Minister of Immigration will be very much aware that there are so many people here that are trapped in New Zealand, effectively, who have a visa and, with the current rules, are unable to change from one employer to another and a job description. They can change from one employer to another employer to do the same job, but they can’t change from one employer to do a different type of job.

Particularly in the wine industry and horticulture—I’ll use the wine industry as an example, people that have come out from overseas to work in the vintage, those skilled winemakers and cellar hands. There is no longer a need for those jobs, as the harvest is over, but there is a shortage of people to prune the vineyards, and there are jobs going begging there at the moment. Those people are sitting in Marlborough unable to work and unable, in some cases, to support themselves. That was heard by the officials, it was heard by the select committee, but it’s not to be part of the bill, and that is something that the Minister will have the power, under these special directions, to address in his role as Minister. I implore him to do so, because there are some serious issues there.

The migrant community is very concerned about their plight at the moment, and on a human level we can all understand that. We’re all in this position not because of our choosing, and we have to react to it in the best way that we can. I for one think, if we were Ministers in the Government’s position, we’d have probably done the same thing as to where we are today. It’s about how we get to this—[Interruption] For this particular bill, I’m talking about. So in that case, we have shaped it, I think, into the best shape that we can, and it’s with that I commend the bill to the House.

Just a very brief call, because I did want to acknowledge the officials that supported us. Before I do, though, I wanted to just make the point that the number of times the Minister moving the third reading, the Hon Chris Hipkins, used the words “power” or “powers” I think makes the point that I was making in the committee of the whole House. I do apologise if I have left people, having used that Marvel Comics “power for good” analogy, with this mental image of Iain Lees-Galloway jumping into a phone booth and coming out with a red cape and undies, because that’s an image I won’t get out of my head.

The “power for good” actually came from one of the policy managers, Christine Hyndman, who I had the privilege of working with for five years as Minister of Immigration. I just want to thank her and her team and also Fraser Richards. I don’t think there is anybody in the country who knows immigration law better than Fraser Richards. Many know bits of it, but he knows a lot. I just want to acknowledge them—the work that they did—and the whole team, and also, again, the clerks James and Jo, who did a fantastic job supporting the committee through that process. I commend it.

Bill read a third time.

I understand there’s an agreement that the House adjourn now.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.