Smith Lockwood: Immigration Bill — First Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11234] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 That was an unusually restrained performance from the Minister of Immigration. We expect rather more from David Cunliffe. He is after all a rising star in this dying Labour Government is he not? Perhaps the odour of death is starting to suppress the sparkle of even some of the younger Ministers. 
I agree with the Minister that this is framework legislation. It is important that we have a measure of bipartisan support for important framework legislation. New Zealand’s fundamental immigration law is too important to have it treated as a political football. As everyone knows this Government is about to be tossed out at the next election because everyone is sick of its endless control control and “Helen knows best” attitude. But just because that happens and this Government is tossed out important legislation such as a framework for our immigration system should not be turned on its head. That is why I think a degree of bipartisan support for important legislation like this is important. That is why I make it clear that National will support this legislation. Obviously if at the select committee examination huge flaws in it are uncovered either we will want those flaws remedied or our support may not be as complete then. But so long as the legislation proves to be as balanced as we perceive it to be at the moment it will continue to get our support. 
What we do not support of course is some of this Government’s rather strange immigration policy—things like the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. That is causing massive problems around New Zealand which can be seen if one goes to any region where there is horticulture or viticulture. The Minister knows that I have right here a paper prepared for him by his officials. What is scary about it is that his officials are telling him that for a significant proportion of the horticulture industry the transition to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme requires no less than a new business model involving major change in culture and practice. The unions have told the Minister they are right behind this. The unions are using the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme to impose what they want on the horticulture and viticulture industries. 
 It is interesting. The Minister is being told that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions needs more resourcing— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Would the member be kind enough to clarify whether the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is contained within the bill? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: If it is not the member needs to speak to the bill. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Quite Madam Assistant Speaker. I am just making a passing reference to this crazy legislation that has the Minister so embarrassed. I am using it as an example of the difference. You see this bill is the framework and we support that. We do not support some of this Government’s dopey immigration policies such as the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. Do members know what the Ministers officials are telling the Minister? They are saying that if the Government were to allow for example the seasonal work permit to be continued Pacific Island leaders would be offended by it because it might undermine the scheme that Helen has sold—I should say that the Prime Minister has sold—to our Pacific Island neighbours as a wonderful aid programme for them and they are caught by a crazy hybrid scheme. So that is the difference. That is policy that we do not support. This is legislation. We support this framework legislation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave for the member to yield his time so that I can give him a refresher briefing on the progress on the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: We do not want to waste time listening to that member. He has enough problems out there with the industry. He has huge problems with the industry. The industry is not very enthusiastic. It is saying that neither he nor Mr Benson-Pope who was involved before were listening. I have to say though in fairness that the Minister is now listening. I accept that. The problem is that he is hoist with his own petard. The Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is so dumb; he does not know how to try to meet the industry’s needs. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Let me make clear which parts of this legislation we support and why. Basically the legislation does two things. It provides for greater facilitation of processing immigration decisions and it strengthens risk management around immigration and border protection. There are risks there and the legislation strengthens the management of them. We support these two fundamental objectives. 
In respect of the facilitation side of the bill we support things like the simpler visa system. Anyone who knows anything about our current double-layered visa permit system knows that it is just unnecessarily complicated. It confuses people and there is no need for it. Having a single visa system makes sense and National supports it. 
In respect of things like decision making on exceptions to policy where those are positive exceptions to policy the bill proposes that the Minister can delegate those. The poor old Associate Minister of Immigration at the moment is faced with having to make so many thousands of decisions a year that it makes sense that some of that decision making can be devolved to the appropriate level of the department. Again we support that. 
In respect of the appeals process at the moment there are so many different appeals bodies that under the current law once someone has been through one appeal process he or she can start again. I think there is a bipartisan acceptance of the need to have a robust and fair appeals system whereby a person can get a fair hearing and once that person’s case is dealt with it is dealt with. That person cannot start on it again and go through yet another different appeal process. So the establishment of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal makes sense. 
In respect of the biometric information this legislation will be a bit more controversial. The Minister knows that the Auditor-General identified 500-and-something cases of identity fraud involving immigration. On  
Agenda 
 the other day the Minister could not even tell viewers where the 389 allocated cases of immigration fraud were. The Minister said “Where are they?” as if he was asking the poor old interviewer. Guyon Espiner had to explain to the Minister where they were. And the Minister said: “Well actually these 389 cases are probably not very sensitive.” Little did he seem to remember that the Auditor-General had actually told him that a significant number of them—almost half—were category A. That is kind of serious. But I make that point in passing. Biometric information is important because we need to know who is coming to this country. For New Zealand citizens it will just involve a biometric photograph which I do not think is too invasive at all. For non - New Zealanders rather more detailed information is required but given the fraud problems that we have I think that although we need to look to make sure it is not too intrusive the move in this direction makes good sense. 
In respect of the risk management side of things our deportation and removal system is overly complex. Why we have a deportation system and a removal system in the current law I have to confess quite escapes me. I think all New Zealanders would feel much more comfortable about simplifying it into a single deportation system that is more robust. I think there is a degree of unease around New Zealand that people who should not be here are staying here too long and we need to have a system to move them out and make sure that it works. 
The monitoring and detention arrangements that the legislation proposes are a tiered response to manage risk. The provision for a 4-hour detention by specially trained and warranted immigration officers for which police involvement would not be required is a streamlining of the system. So long as it is implemented wisely—and at the select committee I am sure we will hear submissions on it—it makes sense to move down this track. 
Access to information is vitally important. We support the moves in the bill to get better access to information. The compliance power moves the use of classified information. I think we have seen the craziness of the system at the moment with the Ahmed Zaoui case—which I think was the case the Minister was referring to—where classified information has been used. The mechanisms have not been successful. Where classified information needs to be used it should be possible to use it and we need better ways to use it promptly deal with the matter and resolve the issues. At the select committee we need to make sure that the balance is right in this area. We will examine that carefully but National supports the thrust here. 
One bit that I am concerned about is that the legislation will prevent employers from being able to use something called an IR330 as identification of a person’s right to be employed in New Zealand. An IR330 is the form that any new employee has to fill in for an employer to identify his or her tax code. One would normally expect that if someone has a tax number from the Inland Revenue Department he or she ought to be able to be legally employed in New Zealand but that is not necessarily the case. We will want to examine this at the select committee because if this imposes unacceptable compliance costs on employers we will not support it. I am an employer and we have to put ourselves in the place of employers. How are they to know whether someone is legally entitled to be in New Zealand? When someone fronts up fills in an IR330 and gives the employer a valid Inland Revenue Department tax number how is the employer to know that the person is not legally entitled to be in New Zealand? We do not want to see compliance costs heaped on employers. It is an issue we will want to examine. But National will be supporting the introduction of this legislation.