Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:612;Page:9255] 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she stand by the Department of Labour’s annual report for 2002-03 in relation to the New Zealand Immigration Service? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes in particular where I rated the policy advice given by the Immigration Service to be excellent in all areas and to outperform expectations. However the operational side of the Immigration Service which employs over 700 staff has more challenges because of the nature of the work which involved considering over 350000 temporary permits and over 45000 applications for residence that year. This was reflected in the global customer satisfaction survey that year which was down on that of the year before. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think that here and elsewhere like on the  
Holmes  
show her going on like a parrot for hours somehow advances her cause rather than her answering the plain fact yes or no whether she is satisfied; if that is the case how come the report recites 48530 people being granted residence and Statistics New Zealand recites a figure of 72500 for the same period—how does she square that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I answered the question with the word “Yes” before I explained why my answer was “Yes”. Secondly in answer to the second question it is simply the fact that that member continues to misunderstand Statistics New Zealand’s method of collecting statistics. Its statistics are quite different from residence approvals. 
Dianne Yates 
: How does the 2002-03 report differ from those of previous years? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: This is the first year that the department’s report has focused on outcomes as opposed to being restricted to outputs. This will enable the Government to measure the results of immigration policy against the benefits for New Zealand and for migrants instead of simply counting the numbers of migrants entering the country which was the approach of the previous Government. 
Paul Adams 
: Does she agree with the sentiment of the Department of Labour’s annual report which states that the benefits of immigration can be realised only if the host community is welcoming and well informed; if so will she make people more aware that with a declining natural birth rate this country is absolutely dependent on immigration to provide enough workers to pay for superannuitants like those who vote for New Zealand First? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes and yes. I should also point out to the member that comments made about migrants to this country can be very damaging to New Zealand’s reputation and the way that those migrants are received here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of running a sound economy and paying for our long-term retirement perhaps the Minister could tell me this: if 18000 migrants entered with no skills and a further 8000 which makes 24000 who entered in the skilled category failed to gain appropriate employment—that is more than half the Minister’s number—how on earth is this helping the economy? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Again the member fails to acknowledge the fact that this Government changed the rules under the family-sponsored category. Under the family-sponsored category those who are not direct relatives—the parents and dependent children of principal applicants— have to have a job offer to come to New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is her report. There is the article in  
Dominion Post 
 today—and it is a very small one I might add. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is incorrect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Then where is the Minister’s disclaimer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are on a point of order. Please come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is this. It is not whether she has changed the rules or changed her policy which she does every day but how do 24000 people—nowhere near the 74 percent her department recites—not in work and not in appropriate work 
matched to their skills help our economy? Could she tell us that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member talk about 18000 and 8000; that is actually 26000. But as far as I am concerned the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Labour statistics show that more than half of those granted residence in 2002-03 were not offered jobs correlating to the occupation they held in their “home country” as recited there and is this not just another example of this Government’s bungling and doing little more than importing a majority of potential beneficiaries receiving free health-care housing and education services and bleeding the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member has misread the report of the Department of Labour as did the New Zealand Press Association journalist who supplied the information in the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning. I quote from the report: “Seventy-four percent of job offers for general skills applicants approved in the 2002-03 year match their home country occupation. Sixty percent of general skills applicants had job offers; 74 percent of them matched their home country occupation.” It is silent on the subject of all those siblings and adult children who now have to have job offers due to the change that our Government brought in in 2001. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thanking the Minister for finally telling us the truth about what they are silent on—[ 
Interruption 
] I know they find the truth a joke. We do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member now come to the question please. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You did say yesterday that questions were to be asked in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did and I agree with the member but the member very nearly left the Chamber. I usually give one final warning; that is it. Please ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In thanking the Minister for finally telling us the numbers of people she has left out can she tell us why the Department of Labour does not reconcile its figures with those of Statistics New Zealand and put in everybody aged from 1 to 91 if he or she happens to be in the category then give us the true figures for a change rather than disguising the beneficiary numbers? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was this Government that changed the rules so that there are fewer beneficiaries in the initial 2 years after people move to New Zealand. I have in my hand the 30 June 1998— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Minister now to address the particular question that was asked. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —which by way of comparison does not contain a single reference— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. Despite your getting to your feet and asking the Minister to address the question she went on to explain that her answer was by way of comparison which she is not required to do. I want to know why she has not given us the total set of figures and worked out the percentages on that. We do not know who is here for humanitarian reasons who has children or who has dependants. That is what I want her to tell us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might be prepared to come to the particular question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The 2002-03 Department of Labour annual report has a number of references to employment outcomes for migrants. For example it states on page 103 that migrants who have lived in New Zealand for more than 10 years have an employment rate of 72 percent compared with 73 percent for New Zealand - born individuals. The point is that over time the results do improve for migrants. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to ask this Minister—in her fourth year as Minister—why she will not give this Parliament and me and the public the full set of figures on which percentages can be worked out such as those who are dependants and those who are not in work. She refuses because a denial of those facts is a key to her presentation. I want the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. The Minister addressed the question. Obviously the answer does not satisfy the member but that is not my place as Speaker. She did address the question.