Woodhouse Michael: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):Dr Prasad commenced his intervention on Vote Immigration in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill questioning whether our immigration system is working well. Well I can advise him and the Committee that it is working a heck of a lot better than it did when that member’s party was in power. When we came into office in 2008 the immigration system was in an absolute shambles. There were thousands of applications pending. The timeliness and quality of the decision making was poor. The Pacific division was in complete disarray. The Christchurch office was making its own rules and then changing them.I find it quite disgraceful for that member to politicise the tragedy of the Kumar family in the way that he just did. He accuses the Associate Minister of Immigration of hiding behind a privacy waiver. That member got a privacy waiver and then put selective and incorrect data out into the public arena but refused—refused—to intervene and get the Associate Minister to the position where she could tell the whole story about that case. It is disgraceful that that member would continue to politicise that tragic situation when he knows that under the Labour Government from 1999 to 2008 the decision-making landscape was replete with inappropriate decisions that unfortunately had negative outcomes for Pacific residents with health issues. To come into this Chamber and say that this Government has blood on its hands is an absolute disgrace. I challenge that member to be very careful what he wishes for because if that privacy waiver is ever given to the Associate Minister and the full story of that case is told he will be very very embarrassed indeed and will probably be quite pleased to be leaving this House. But I say this: the privacy waiver is a long way too late for that family. I do not believe even if it is now given that it is in anybody’s interests least of all the Kumar family’s to continue to litigate the facts of that case after Mr Kumar’s passing. It is a disgrace and that member should be ashamed.It is not surprising that immigration policy has been very much at the forefront of the discussions around this Budget. I am very proud of this Government’s track record on immigration. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman came and spent 3 years cleaning up the mess that was left and Nathan Guy and I have inherited a much much sounder Immigration New Zealand with better timeliness with a better quality of decision making and—what is very important to me—very good feedback from its clients about the quality of that service. It is important to note that immigration is quite ubiquitous. It extends into all areas of Government policy. I think that when one looks at the National Government’s four priorities of responsibly managing our finances delivering better public services building a more competitive economy and rebuilding Canterbury immigration has an underpinning role to play in all four of those goals.There is no doubt that we are in a global contest. We are in a contest for skills for foreign investment for international students and for tourists and the degree to which we succeed in that contest is very much a part of the policies processes and technologies that we use to deliver a good immigration service. Under Vision 2015 which is very much underpinned by successive Budgets including this one there has been quite a transformation away from bricks and mortar and a branch-based structure. When the service and the application processes are put online we will see what I am confident will be a much much more efficient application process where case officers can concentrate more on the quality of the application than on chasing around after paperwork. I think that is an important difference and it will also achieve the Government’s goal to have at least 70 percent of transactions with the Government online.But I want to move to two specific areas and indeed the main one does underpin the Government’s objective for the rebuild of Canterbury. The Minister of Labour Simon Bridges and I have jointly announced over $7 million of new funding to support the Canterbury rebuild by protecting vulnerable workers and ensuring safe workplaces and fair workplaces. I think this is very important. I have become somewhat concerned at the risk that migrant exploitation although low could grow particularly in the Canterbury region as the rebuild commences. There is no doubt that we are going to need to rely very heavily on migrant labour to assist in the rebuild. The Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment has invested heavily in skills and training and we will see our young New Zealanders becoming qualified and being at the front of the queue.Carol Beaumont: Obviously not enough given the reliance on migrant workers.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right. It is not going to be enough. We understand that. I think both sides of the Committee accept that although there were great opportunities for young New Zealanders—job seekers and trades trainees—to participate in the Canterbury rebuild given the pace and scale of the work that is required we are already and will in the future increasingly rely on foreign migrant labour to assist with the rebuild. So it is important to me that those workers understand their rights and obligations and that employers also understand that they need to treat their workers fairly and that there are sanctions for not doing so. That is why the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) before the House will significantly increase the penalties for the exploitation of lawful migrant workers and I am disappointed to note that the Labour Party and the Green Party are not going to support that bill. The important thing about migrant exploitation is prevention. I have been working hard in the migrant community to ensure that people have the confidence to speak up knowing that in this country the rule of law can be obeyed. I am confident that with the extra resources that we are putting in through Budget 2014 we will be able to do that.The other part of the new money that came out of Budget 2014 was for the refugee resettlement programme. It has not had an increase in funding for some years. It is important to me that we ensure that the settlement outcomes for our refugees are as good as they can be. The review in 2012 that led to the refugee resettlement strategy identified that just 43 percent of quota refugees are in full-time paid employment 5 years after they arrive in New Zealand. That is just not good enough and that is why we reframed the settlement strategy around work as an important indicator of good settlement outcomes. I think with this extra funding we will certainly be able to do that.One of the most disappointing parts of Budget 2014 was the oblique reference in Treasury documents to strongly positive permanent and long-term migration being misunderstood by the media and by certain elements in this House as somehow an immigration bow wave coming through into New Zealand. Nothing could be further from the truth. Positive net migration is being largely driven by New Zealanders not leaving and more New Zealanders coming back. Indeed the residence programme has seen a reduction of over 20 percent in resident visas in the last 6 or 7 years. But it is important for people to understand the difference between net migration and immigration and even members of this House still do not with some of their confusing interventions.I think we have dramatically turned round the performance of Immigration New Zealand. I am very pleased with the way in which that department operates. It is important that we have policies that are not too loose—nor too tight for that matter—and that are skills-focused but fulfil our humanitarian and family reunification obligations. I think they do that and I am very pleased with their performance.Vote agreed to.