Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6736] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 This bill will not be referred to a select committee as it is my intention to move its passage through all stages under urgency. This bill amends the Immigration Act to make it clear that the New Zealand Immigration Service can prioritise the order in which immigration applications are decided and it contains provisions for lapsing the lower-ranking general skills category applications that are currently awaiting decisions. This bill will help to ensure that the Government’s immigration outcome objectives are met by prioritising applicants with the best prospects of making a positive contribution to New Zealand and settling well. The provisions in this bill support and complement changes to the legislative framework for Government residence policy contained in the Immigration Amendment Bill which we have just referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Global prioritisation will enable residence applicants with for example high contribution and settlement potential to be given early consideration. This will help New Zealand to maximise the outcomes that can be achieved from immigration policy in what is the interim period by prioritising on a global basis applications from those most likely to contribute to New Zealand and settle well. They will be decided first rather than those who have lodged their application in a particular branch that may have more capacity or residence approval places available. 
These provisions are needed because of the high number of general skills category residence applications that are currently on hand waiting to be decided including many applicants who are unlikely to succeed here. Many of the applicants—up to 3000 of them—are in the country at the moment. Many of them have relevant job offers under existing policy. This means that their applications for residence can be dealt with now—immediately—rather than having to wait for applications that have been in the pipeline for a very long period of time. 
The reality is that this is the section of the bill that does have retrospective impact. The retrospective impact deals with the lapsing provisions. These lapsing provisions relate to certain applications made under the general skills category that are on hand awaiting consideration. The policy itself sets out very clearly which of the applicants will in fact be lapsed. Applications made before 20 November 2002 which have low settlement and contribution potential and made by applicants with relevant job offers and high point-scores will still be considered for approval. So this is certainly not a case of disposing of all of the applications that have been received under this category. In fact it is about prioritising those that meet the intent of our immigration policy and of our skilled migration policy. It is about prioritising those with the rest being lapsed. 
High demand for residence over and above the number of places available in the New Zealand immigration programme has resulted in a queue of general skills category applications and without a mechanism to lapse some of those applications the positive impact of skilled immigration policy changes designed to improve immigration outcomes—both for New Zealand and for new migrants—would be delayed for at least 2 years. Lapsing some lower-ranking applications currently queued will enable the remainder of applications with high contribution and settlement potential to be decided as a priority. This includes those applications involving opportunities in New Zealand that are available for a limited time. For example when an employer has offered a position that must be taken up by a certain date it is important that those applications are considered quickly. 
The bill clarifies that lapsed applicants off shore will not have a right to seek a judicial review of the lapsing decision. It is common practice for access to judicial review not to be available to people who are outside the country. All lapsed applicants will receive a refund of the application fee paid and I think that people need to understand that that was the basis for the appropriation that has been made to support this legislation. Just over $9 million has been set aside for the return of application fees. 
I know that many of the lapsed applicants will be disappointed but the question that I had to ask myself was this: what is better—lapsing the application and giving applicants back the money they had paid or inviting them to travel all the way to New Zealand to find when they got here that they had nothing to offer New Zealand and New Zealand had nothing to offer them? That is the reality of the previous general skills category which gave a right to residence based on a set number of points. 
In addition the bill addresses the distinction between Government immigration policy and Government residence policy. That has arisen as a result of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment court case but does not overrule the decision of the court in terms of retrospective application. I want to be clear about that. It is a provision that is forward looking and enables me to cancel the job-search visa provisions which as a result of the High Court decision have been caught up in Government residence policy. 
Having read the Cabinet paper that guided the National Party when it introduced the policy in respect of job-search visas and the advice that I received in confirming that policy when I became the Minister I can assure the House that the use of the job-search visa for people to take up residence on the basis of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs was never intended. The Cabinet paper is explicit in that regard. Nor was it ever seen or intended to be seen as an integral part of residence policy. The ability to decline an application for a job-search visa matched temporary entry policy not Government residence policy which is why it was non-transferable and non-renewable. There was a 6-month period of an open work permit to look for the points required for residence under a system that automatically approved residence on the passing of an ever-changing level of points. It was more like a limited purpose visa because it could not be translated into anything other than the residence permit if a job offer was able to be obtained yet it has become entangled in Government residence policy. 
The bill does three things: it confirms the global prioritisation approach to considering applications it lapses those that do not meet the priority criteria and it confirms the distinction between Government immigration policy and Government residence policy. I do want to make a point in respect of those who say that they speak on behalf of immigration consultants in this country. I have just received an email from somebody who describes himself as being the director of the largest immigration firm handling migration to New Zealand or Australia from Europe. He states: “From an initial perusal of the information I can confirm that due to our company’s very strong in-house settlement and recruitment programme we foresee little effect on the majority of our clients’ overall eligibility to emigrate to New Zealand and we shall start tomorrow to incorporate the changes into our firm’s procedure and advice. Such changes to regulation and statute have little negative consequence for applicants who are in a strong position to start a new life in New Zealand. Our 25 staff in Christchurch five staff in London six staff in Amsterdam and five staff in Australia will commence work tomorrow on placing into effect the Government’s changes.” 
A number of people have spoken out in favour of the changes we are making and I can certainly tell the House that I agree with this statement: “We insist on a clean and well-defined system of immigration which is beneficial to New Zealand and New Zealanders not the kind of policy that looks at quantity and not quality. We really don’t care where the immigrants come from so long as they are able to integrate into our society be gainfully employed and contribute to economic development.” So said Mr Winston Peters and I support that. This legislation makes that happen.